What does "what comes after Git" look like for a two-person team vs. a 200-person org? The pain points are completely different.
We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
561–570 of 785 posts
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#562Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#563they aren't building something to help you, they're building something to trap you. even if it's free, does things you like, etc., do not use it. their end goal is to screw you
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#564Earlier quoted context omitted.
Step 1: don't pitch from a conartist6 username
It's been my username for 20 years and I'm not changing it to be more corpo-propriate now. I think it makes more sense if you know that my name is Conrad. It's pretty easy to find out who I am in the real world too. For one thing I'm a private pilot and for 10 years I had an airplane personally registered to me, making my name and address a matter of (open) public record.
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#565A lot of people seem confused about how they raised the money, but it’s actually a pretty easy VC pitch. - It’s from one of GitHub’s cofounders. - GitHub had a $7.5B exit. - And the story is: AI is completely changing how software gets built, with plenty of proof points already showing up in the billions in revenue being made from things like Claude Code, Cusor, Codex, etc. So the pitch is basically: back the team th…
I think I have just as good a shot at building what comes after git as their team does, and perhaps quite a lot better. I'm not famous though, I'm just a good engineer who is patient, inquisitive, and determined enough to spend the last five years of my life on nothing but this. My question is: say the investor believes that some new platform will win out over Github. How do I make the case that it will be mine over…
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#566Also, I don’t think I would use this and the problems they describe aren’t really things I care much about.
I wish them the best, but $17m on a devtools company that thinks they are replacing git is going to be rough going.
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#567Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I have just as good a shot at building what comes after git as their team does, and perhaps quite a lot better. I'm not famous though, I'm just a good engineer who is patient, inquisitive, and determined enough to spend the last five years of my life on nothing but this. My question is: say the investor believes that some new platform will win out over Github. How do I make the case that it will be mine over…
That is an empirical question answered by the market. The way you get your answer is to build it, get it in front of people, and see if they use it. Then you will know. Note that if you want to be the answer, then you have to prioritize other things than the technology. You can have the best product, but if nobody knows about it you're stuck.
The nature of developing standards is that you can't have people start adopting them until they're done.
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#568Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is not "will the product be better." The question is will you make the investors money.
I understand that money is at the root of the question. I don't see any problem with my strategy for making money, which is to win over all their users with a wildly better product. Github itself basically followed this route. They didn't built Git on top of SVN. They built a much better product (than Sourceforge) and they used network effects (particularly their free-for-OSS offer) to grow their userbase until they…
I don't know if they were the first git forge, but they were certainly among the first.
Re: We've raised $17M to build what comes after Git
#569I recently switched to Jujutsu (jj) and it made me realize that “what comes after Git” might already exist. It turns out the snapshot model is a perfect fit for AI-assisted development. I can iterate freely without thinking about commits or worrying about saving known-good versions. You can just mess around and make it presentable later, which Git never really let you do nicely. Plus there’s essentially zero learning…