it was removed by bitbucket as well. god, this repo is reprehensive.
I don't get the outrage. In fact, I think it's a brilliant parody of post-structuralist jargon, self-contradictions and pretentious verbal mannerisms. If you take this repo as a serious attack against feminism I have to point out that as far as I can see the whole thing has no substance and offers no comments on real-life issues. Zero. It satirizes a certain vacuous style of writing . Saying that it threatens feminis…
Perhaps Github do not feel that satire belongs there.
Github currently may use the "social coding" part for marketing now, but it can build off it in the future. For example, StackOverflow built a whole careers site off Q&A, Github can choose to go further based on real code.
"github labs used machine learning to generate a simple english -> python translation algorithm. it crawled the millions of commits, looking at comments and commit logs to understand software"
(c. 2028) Github announced today that it has acquired StackExchange, known for its Q&A site for developers and algorithms. This will let Github enhance their own automated software development suite. Github analyzes open-source and closed-source code (under licensing agreements) to produce new software automatically on demand. Currently Github primarily determines a piece of code's functionality from its unit tests, but this acquisition will let them expand their source of knowledge.
This may increase the concern among some developers and algorithm managers that Github is becoming too powerful. There has been controversy in the past over Github's restricted API access to open source code on its site. Some developers want to move their code from Github, but they've come to rely on the automatic tools Github provides...
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…
Yep, you are right on point. Developers use the commodity version at home and
want to use the same (awesome) tools in the workplace. Enterprise companies
who wish to differentiate their hiring/talent pipeline recognise this and
consider it a commercial advantage. Additionally these same enterprises have
strict IP policies which prevent the IP from being hosted in the cloud. Win Win.
The enterprise product VMware/Xen/HyperV image is *the exact same* ruby/chef
codebase as used in production on GitHub.com. They are making an absolute
killing via price discrimination - have you seen the enterprise pricing?
https://enterprise.github.com/features#pricing
- 10 developers -> $2,500 USD a year.
- 50 developers -> $12,500 USD a year (+/- enterprise negotiations)
- 150 developers -> $37,500 USD a year (+/- enterprise negotiations)
- 500 developers -> Telephone number of a sales/account rep appears.
IMHO this (cheap) cash is going to be used to grow their sales and enterprise
support teams to accelerate this loop. https://jobs.github.com/companies/GitHub
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…
From an employer's perspective, github profile has been one of the highest signal in our hiring decisions. Anecdotally, I have yet to see a gamed profile. This builds a very tight feedback loop, and ends up with more developers using github. And I don't see anything disrupting this loop for the time being.
If you're hiring based on GitHub profiles, you're absolutely doing it wrong. I've seen plenty of total idiots with flashy GitHub profiles, and many -- if not all -- of the best coders I know have essentially nothing on GitHub.
A GitHub profile page is a strong signal only that you have a GitHub account. Any other use is strictly off-label.
That requires people to understand context and nuance. We live in a world where a guy wants to ban Mel Brooks' The Producers because he doesn't realize it's a satire of Hitler, not an homage. Lots of people don't or won't appreciate context.
And generally people who don't understand context are laughed off the stage and not taken seriously.
My employer also recently switched from Hipchat to Slack, and I'd say Slack is vastly superior. Most important for me are the notifications. Slack lets you set per-channel notification settings. With Hipchat I'd either miss messages I wanted to see or have to get constant notifications. "More granular notifications" was either the #1 or #2 highest-voted issue in their feature requests for over three years , and they'…
okay, you're right. The per channel notifications and showing notifications on logging back in are both things I really wanted in Hipchat at the time. I guess now that I'm so used to having them in Slack, I completely forgot about not having them!!
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 us…
"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." I think it's pretty much inevitable once the money rolls in that companies like Github and others will start censoring content and generally doing things that upset the community to appease their investors. I can't think of a single c…
I don't think as many people are upset by these being taken down as you think.
Any attempt to use revenues as justification of the valuation is missing the point, also comments regarding git hosting being a commodity misses it. The valuation imho is a bet that GitHub will be ingrained in developer's workflow and continue to occupy developer mindshare for at least the next decade. Some reasons have already been mentioned in the comments here: * Revenues - It's already the dominant player in git…
Can not agree with you anymore. GitHub is two things: 1. LinkedIn for Programmers, 2. Development Platform/Toolchains for Programmers.
Considering Atlassian valued at 3.3B in last round, GitHub has more potential. However, GitHub should prove itself with real money sooner or later.
My comment wasn't intended to make you bite. HipChat is playing catchup constantly with Slack (except the @here feature; Slack was behind the ball on that one). Slack's channel integrations are incredibly smooth. Message delivery is so much more reliable on Slack mobile than HipChat's app ever was (perhaps this was iOS specific?). Message management (stars, pinning, history links I can take from Slack and throw into…
>"But it'll effect my decision to work there. I've interviewed people at my previous job, and they have flat out decided not to join when they were told we weren't using Github and had no plans to move to it." This is a bit extreme IMO. Tools should be a secondary concern for any developer. If a job is right for a person, such details should not matter.
Those details influence whether the job is right, though. I won't work for a company that uses CVS, for example, because it tells me a lot about the culture of the company. They may have perfectly defensible reasons that make sense to them to use it, but I will, through my own cultural biases and feelings, not be comfortable there.
Any attempt to use revenues as justification of the valuation is missing the point, also comments regarding git hosting being a commodity misses it. The valuation imho is a bet that GitHub will be ingrained in developer's workflow and continue to occupy developer mindshare for at least the next decade. Some reasons have already been mentioned in the comments here: * Revenues - It's already the dominant player in git…
> value as a latent hiring marketplace
StackOverflow has been trying to monetize this aspect of its user base for a few years now [0], but has not made much headway as far as I can tell.