GitHub Raises $250M at $2B Valuation • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by silverbax88 » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 1:35 AM UTC

mszyndel wrote: post #119

blazespin wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, the valuation makes no sense to me. There's really no switching costs that I see. Bitbucket is actually superior in many ways because of its tight integration with Atlassian - the real Microsoft Word of the Developer community. Sourceforge had this kind of play at one point and look at it now. Maybe they're going to start displaying ads for jobs for developers. Not sure that's worth 2B though...

Yet to meet a developer who's as excited about using Jira as about using Github issues...

I hate Jira but I love BitBucket. Absolutely hate Git. I know that GitHub and Git are not one and the same.

BitBucket+Mercurial is sweetness as a developer. Better than TFS, far better than Git, and well, everything on the planet is better than ClearCase.

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

#162

Post by hermanmerman » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 1:36 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #77

The most interesting thing about all these massive fund raisings is why. It is almost as if the managers of these companies think we are about to enter a period where raising funds will be impossible, revenue from servicing the startup economy will dry up, and they will need a massive war chest to survive.

Why wait to find out, when there is money on the table right now?

Also, sometimes they have to take a lot of money, as later-stage investors want to control a sizable chunk of the company (in this case, 12.5%).

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

#163

Post by erics32 » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 1:39 AM UTC

netheril96 wrote: post #147

erics32 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also not the first time Github has deleted a repo for ideological reasons. See: C+=

Care to elaborate about it? I just found it accessible at https://github.com/ErisBlastar/cplusequality

The original C+= repo (https://github.com/FeministSoftwareFoundation/C-plus-Equalit...) was taken down by Github after twitter backlash.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/12/14/1618239/github-takes...

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

#164

Post by silverbax88 » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 1:39 AM UTC

Aldo_MX wrote: post #120

blazespin wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed, the valuation makes no sense to me. There's really no switching costs that I see. Bitbucket is actually superior in many ways because of its tight integration with Atlassian - the real Microsoft Word of the Developer community. Sourceforge had this kind of play at one point and look at it now. Maybe they're going to start displaying ads for jobs for developers. Not sure that's worth 2B though...

> Bitbucket is actually superior in many ways I beg to differ: 2-factor authentication[1], you can't change your credentials[2], it's not as easy to integrate with CI tools since most devs just focus in the integration with Github, and probably there are many more ways where Bitbucket is inferior in comparison with Github. [1] https://bitbucket.org/site/master/issues/5811/support-two-fa... [2] https://answers.atlassi…

Did you really claim 2-factor authentication as your primary differentiation for choosing source control? Really? Not one of the actual uses of the application?

BTW, GitHub does NOT play well with most CI tools. It's memory management is downright abysmal. As someone who understands the deep workings of source control apps, I hate having to constantly work through issues with devs botching their check ins. I never have this with Bitbucket, and it's pretty clear why. It's because BitBucket doesn't use some mishmash of command line and poorly implemented GUIs.

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

#165

Post by stephen » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 1:40 AM UTC

I vaguely know (or assume) that GitHub employs some of the Git core committers, which is great.

But this makes me wonder if any of the founders have written Linus a check to show their thanks. Or maybe after they IPO. :-)

(Obviously they've done a ton on their own.)

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

#166

Post by jareds » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 1:41 AM UTC

toomuchtodo wrote: post #121

mszyndel wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet to meet a developer who's as excited about using Jira as about using Github issues...

I very strongly prefer, as an engineer, not to use Atlassian products (Jira, Hipchat, Bitbucket, etc).

While Jira can be clunky I don't mind using it since it's pretty much totally accessible to me as a blind developer. I can't say the same for a lot of other products my company used to use. Github is pretty good from an accessibility standpoint as well. One thing I can't figure out how to do in Github is see all forks of a repository. Is this possible to do?

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

#167

Post by hga » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 1:41 AM UTC

samt wrote: post #158

geographomics wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a curious turn of events. Is "retard" particularly offensive in some cultures? I wasn't aware it had such inflammatory power behind it.

Yes it is highly offensive to many English speaking individuals in the US. It has historically been used as a highly derogatory term for disabled individuals.

It's certainly at minimum an insulting word, and in this context unambiguously so.

In the context of, say, aerodynamics, its merely a word of art, e.g. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aerodynamic+braking

It'll be another word, perhaps in a more ambigious context, next time. Which brings up another point: I just don't want to have to worry about what will become this politically incorrect in the future when I'm writing code and documentation.

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

#168

Post by wmoxam » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 1:42 AM UTC

hermanmerman wrote: post #45

gamesbrainiac wrote: post #17

Just $2Bn? Sound a little low to for something like Github.

tablecloth math time: $2bn worth, assuming they're worth 10 times their revenue (let's be generous), that would require $200m in sales. they have 10m users, assuming 1% are paying, that means 100k users for $200m sales, meaning each user must spend 2000 dollars per year at Github. Sounds a little high considering the basic plan is $7/month, but with entreprise sales and growth rate, it sounds feasible.

I pay them $7, and my employer also pays them. I only have one account ;)

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

#169

Post by geographomics » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 1:43 AM UTC

samt wrote: post #158

geographomics wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a curious turn of events. Is "retard" particularly offensive in some cultures? I wasn't aware it had such inflammatory power behind it.

Yes it is highly offensive to many English speaking individuals in the US. It has historically been used as a highly derogatory term for disabled individuals.

Useful to know, thanks. I was quite surprised by the furore as in the UK it's typically not deemed quite so offensive.

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

#170

Post by skuhn » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 1:44 AM UTC

stephen wrote: post #165

I vaguely know (or assume) that GitHub employs some of the Git core committers, which is great. But this makes me wonder if any of the founders have written Linus a check to show their thanks. Or maybe after they IPO. :-) (Obviously they've done a ton on their own.)

Red Hat gave Linus some stock prior to their IPO, which was hardly required but a pretty nice gesture.

I don't know of any other public examples of a company making stock grants to developers of major building blocks of their ecosystem, but they might be out there. GitHub is under no obligation, but I think they owe as much to Linus as Red Hat did in 1999.