Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 416 posts

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#101

Post by hga »

seanflyon wrote: post #85
hga wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not aware of Microsoft Word or any editor I've ever used or heard of forbidding me from using the word "retards" or any other. Heck, Gnu Emacs allows me to write proprietary software, a user freedom RMS is no doubt not entirely happy with. 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…

Could you explicitly state what it is you are referring to? I'm not familiar with github's content restrictions.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9966118

tl;dr: Observed fact, GitHub disappeared a repo (this I personally know for a fact) and all its forks, the only reason we can surmise is that it described itself as "X for retards". I believe it's this one https://github.com/WebMBro/WebMConverter now described as "WebM for bakas." (Japanglish for idiots or fools).

Per this https://imgur.com/QC51FZz it was indeed for the use of that word.

I'd be more willing to extend some slack to GitHub if they hadn't precipitously turned off their service for these repos, that's worse than this example of their "tolerance", but who knows what it'll be next?

Who knows how this will play out in the long term; their trashing of their meritocracy rug suggests this is not a one off (ADDED: and erics32 reminded me of C+=). Why should I or anyone else concerned about long term stability invest in their particular value adds when they show such capriciousness?

The great point, in relation to this topic of their latest investment, is that companies that depend almost entirely on their "communities" can screw those up and destroy their value.

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#102

Post by enahs-sf »

cheald wrote: post #86
zachrose wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for all the things that Github builds on top of git to keep users coming back (wiki, issues, stars, etc.) which seem to be working.

The thing that GitHub has right now is the userbase - the network effect keeps people interested in their service. The technical value they provide is pretty trivially replicable (see: GitLab, BitBucket), but you can't code up a (real) community. It's worth noting that 10 years ago, this same statement was true of Sourceforge.

I wonder what the sourceforge guys are making of this right now.

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#103

Post by serve_yay »

calcsam wrote: post #41

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…

It's kind of crazy to me that its value even needs to be argued for. But then again, I use it every single day.

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#104

Post by colechristensen »

cheald wrote: post #86
zachrose wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for all the things that Github builds on top of git to keep users coming back (wiki, issues, stars, etc.) which seem to be working.

The thing that GitHub has right now is the userbase - the network effect keeps people interested in their service. The technical value they provide is pretty trivially replicable (see: GitLab, BitBucket), but you can't code up a (real) community. It's worth noting that 10 years ago, this same statement was true of Sourceforge.

gitlab and bitbucket aren't as good, I've tried them and more.

GitHub isn't a commodity that excels only because of it happening to be popular. People choose GitHub because it's both popular and good. It has competition, some of which are better for specific circumstances, but as a whole they don't execute as well.

Let me contrast with Facebook – it was only good, in my opinion, for a brief period starting in 2005 which happened to coincide with my freshman year of university. As it grew and changed, I found myself and very many of my peers hating each significant change. The only reason I've kept an account is because it's popular – it stores some weak social connections which would be otherwise lost.

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#105

Post by timr »

zachrose wrote: post #82
timr wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft Word became a valuable monopoly because it was a proprietary standard. But git hosting is a commodity service. There are already a number of players doing exactly what GitHub does, for less money, and it's trivially easy to migrate a repository away from GitHub to those other providers. Something tells me that the "facebook for programmers" angle is essential to selling the dream here. The so-called "networ…

Except for all the things that Github builds on top of git to keep users coming back (wiki, issues, stars, etc.) which seem to be working.

...all of which are provided by all of the other git hosting providers. Again: these are commodity features.

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#106

Post by timr »

colechristensen wrote: post #104
cheald wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing that GitHub has right now is the userbase - the network effect keeps people interested in their service. The technical value they provide is pretty trivially replicable (see: GitLab, BitBucket), but you can't code up a (real) community. It's worth noting that 10 years ago, this same statement was true of Sourceforge.

gitlab and bitbucket aren't as good, I've tried them and more. GitHub isn't a commodity that excels only because of it happening to be popular. People choose GitHub because it's both popular and good. It has competition, some of which are better for specific circumstances, but as a whole they don't execute as well. Let me contrast with Facebook – it was only good, in my opinion, for a brief period starting in 2005 wh…

Horses for courses. Plenty of people prefer those other providers, just like plenty of people prefer one brand of toothpaste over another. Toothpaste is still a commodity product.

I've never used gitlab, but I find bitbucket to be identical to github in every way that matters.

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#107

Post by dogma1138 »

cheald wrote: post #86
zachrose wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for all the things that Github builds on top of git to keep users coming back (wiki, issues, stars, etc.) which seem to be working.

The thing that GitHub has right now is the userbase - the network effect keeps people interested in their service. The technical value they provide is pretty trivially replicable (see: GitLab, BitBucket), but you can't code up a (real) community. It's worth noting that 10 years ago, this same statement was true of Sourceforge.

GitHub's enterprise grade services and their integration with 3rd party and on-site solutions is currently above what anyone else provides.

It's way above being a simple repository storage which isn't a trivial think to setup to begin with just watch the various talks from BitBucket's core team.

As long as everyone else has to play catch up they will be fine. And i don't see sourceforge as being comparable unless you just look at a project hosting in it's most basic form in which Google Drive or Dropbox can also fit in that category.

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#108

Post by dogma1138 »

cheald wrote: post #86
zachrose wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for all the things that Github builds on top of git to keep users coming back (wiki, issues, stars, etc.) which seem to be working.

The thing that GitHub has right now is the userbase - the network effect keeps people interested in their service. The technical value they provide is pretty trivially replicable (see: GitLab, BitBucket), but you can't code up a (real) community. It's worth noting that 10 years ago, this same statement was true of Sourceforge.

GitHub's enterprise grade services and their integration with 3rd party and on-site solutions is currently above what anyone else provides.

It's way above being a simple repository storage which isn't a trivial think to setup to begin with just watch the various talks from BitBucket's core team.

As long as everyone else has to play catch up they will be fine. And i don't see sourceforge as being comparable unless you just look at a project hosting in it's most basic form in which Google Drive or Dropbox can also fit in that category.

Re: GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation

#110

Post by derwiki »

gelatocar wrote: post #87
gabesullice wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get that when it's just a personal project, but the Github workflow is also very nice to have. When I want a buddy to access my private repo, I just add his/her GitHub user name, I don't need to have them create a BitBucket account. I don't need to figure out how issues and PRs work with BitBucket, etc. It's the network effects and UI that I'm paying for - one UI private or public. Plus, it supports a service I val…

My agency is considering switching to bitbucket from github because bitbucket's pricing per team member would cost us 10 times less than github's pricing per repository.

You probably won't notice a difference. Bitbucket acts enough like Github that you won't hiccup.
Post reply on HN