61–70 of 416 posts
"The company’s co-founders were inspired by a tech talk given at Google Inc. in 2007 by Linus Torvalds" funny how many successful companies are founded after getting inspiration from a single talk.
Both this piece, and most commenters, seem to miss the point about where Github's value comes from. It's not for being a social identity for programmers, or hosting open-source libraries. Those are worthy pursuits, but from a business perspective mostly serve as marketing. Github is basically Microsoft Word for programmers, and is an essential part of their workflow. Companies that need enterprise functionality aroun…
Something tells me that the "facebook for programmers" angle is essential to selling the dream here. The so-called "network effect" of open-source projects has some inherent stickiness, but again, there isn't that much that ties a project to GitHub.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't, but what I believe could worry many (especially business users) is the idea of needing to rapidly enact a change within 24 hours to not have a repo or even your entire account deleted. This is assuming https://imgur.com/QC51FZz is even true, though.
Let's assume for a moment that email is true: how many businesses have policies that allow their staff to use language in that particular way? And Github, like most other providers, have catch-all clauses in the ToS. This one, perhaps: > We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and Accounts containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory,…
What I find unsettling is that what they could consider "objectionable" is wide open and resolution of raised issues is expected so rapidly. Silly story time..
A developer in MajorCorp leaves a code comment (which is eventually committed) saying "// TODO: Fix this later, GitHub is down again, GitHub is trash!". GitHub could fairly request its removal as it is likely to be objectionable to them.
However, the main contact on the account is away at a conference and gets to their email a couple of days later. Is their repo or even their entire account now toast? How much would someone want to bet against that?
This is a farfetched contrived story, but now there's a demonstrated (again, assuming the screenshot is legit) attempt to enforce this clause and evidence of "24 hours" being the timeframe allowed for resolution, the tiny risk of such an outcome is going to hit sentiment and get legal departments twitching.
(My personal suspicion is paying and enterprise users will not receive such threats, but in the above example I'm being idealistic and assuming everyone gets equal treatment.)
I wish they would say what they wanted the money for!
Just $2Bn? Sound a little low to for something like Github.
Both this piece, and most commenters, seem to miss the point about where Github's value comes from. It's not for being a social identity for programmers, or hosting open-source libraries. Those are worthy pursuits, but from a business perspective mostly serve as marketing. Github is basically Microsoft Word for programmers, and is an essential part of their workflow. Companies that need enterprise functionality aroun…
I require that general freedom of expression in my tools and do no tolerate vendors who engage in these sorts of damaging stunts. I suspect I'm not alone, and I note GitHub has a further problem of not being all that sticky, e.g. I moved all my repos off it earlier today after we got confirmation of this.
Github seems to be a pretty good or "safe" investment. Developers have already entrusted them with something as precious as their code itself. They also have pretty clear pathways for being profitable with private repos and so on, I'm not that surprised they are getting a lot of funding.
Sorry to say, but any time I need a private repo I just head to BitBucket. GitHub provides tremendous value, I hope they find a good way to capture some of it.
By which you further validate the market for them and for investors.
Just $2Bn? Sound a little low to for something like Github.
The problem is monetization. It's not like Snapchat where you have a potential $1+ billion advertising behemoth . I was surprised it was valued as high as it is
Both this piece, and most commenters, seem to miss the point about where Github's value comes from. It's not for being a social identity for programmers, or hosting open-source libraries. Those are worthy pursuits, but from a business perspective mostly serve as marketing. Github is basically Microsoft Word for programmers, and is an essential part of their workflow. Companies that need enterprise functionality aroun…