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

291–300 of 416 posts

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

#291

Post by tn13 »

I have 0 expertise on valuations so would not comment on that but I do think that github has a near monopoly when it comes to hosting a popular open source project.

Git* sites are pretty much same as Github but they simply dont have the traction and are unlikely to have till github does something stupid. This is very similar to the fact that while Android is open source any any device manufacture can make an Android phone, only Samsung seems to be winning while everyone seems to be a minor fish in the pond.

I will really really be surprised if investors did not assign a value to this.

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

#292

Post by hueving »

Retra wrote: post #270
mynameishere wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Github is basically Microsoft Word for programmers That makes no sense at all. It's like the "track changes" feature in Word, maybe. You know--one little feature on a much, much larger tool.

The point is that it is a standard, critical work tool.

No it's not. I work in open source and very rarely use github. git is a standard tool, github is only a polished frontend that seems to be a standard amongst web developers.

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

#293

Post by Zardoz84 »

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).

We are using Jira (only user management) + Confluence + Fisheye with Crucible for code review over a svn repository.

I need to say that Confluence as a internal wiki works very well. And FishEye + Crucible do a really nice to do code reviews. The only weakness that I saw to Fisheye is that when do you do a search of stuff, can't spot the thing that you are searching inside of a source file. Only shows you the source file, enforcing you to relay on your web browser search that don't works well over FishEye UI.

Also, I try to search a open source (and free) replacement of FishEye + Crucible that works over our svn repository. I can't find anything that works on the same way.

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

#294

Post by shocks »

girvo wrote: post #262
mpdehaan2 wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite having a gazillion issue trackers, something halfway between the two would be welcome. GitHub issue tracking is not good enough to manage any kind of large project, JIRA is a bit of a beast. I'd prefer having an integrated JIRA any day, though I do still strongly DISLIKE JIRA. There's still opportunity for something better IMHO. (For very small teams, I find that's Trello, but Trello isn't really for large gr…

I really enjoy Breeze[0] at work. It's similar in concept to Trello, but aimed far more at project management and development. They just released a Gantt chart app that integrates with it, which is making some managers here really happy, heh. [0] https://breeze.pm

SSL link doesn't work.

http://www.breeze.pm/

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

#295

Post by mrweasel »

turingbook wrote: post #248
sidi wrote: post #239

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.

Atlassian do have products that cater to non-programmers as well, like Jira, HipChat, Confluence and some service desk application. I think Atlassian would naturally be worth more than GitHub, simply due to the larger potential user base.

I don't think we know what profits either company has, and without that information it's hard to know if the valuations are realistic.

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

#296

Post by pjc50 »

petercooper wrote: post #64
DanBC wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I 100% believe GitHub has the right to police and enforce their own standards on their system - just wanted to make that clear first. This is not about the r-word issue for me. 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) sayi…

Most cloud services can be pulled from your business at any time for any reason. This includes gmail and Facebook, and also payment processors.

(Personally I can't understand hosting your source code offsite in the first place if you're a business and not an open source project, but it seems to be popular)

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

#297

Post by hessenwolf »

sidi wrote: post #216
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…

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.

I find this rather confusing. I have some chops, but I have nothing public in open source. I have always been employed to do what I do. Also, I am really not going to put something on github now... my time is really expensive (I'd have to apply for a budget internally of non-billable hours. It really is pretty expensive).

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

#298

Post by DanBC »

petercooper wrote: post #64
DanBC wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I 100% believe GitHub has the right to police and enforce their own standards on their system - just wanted to make that clear first. This is not about the r-word issue for me. 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) sayi…

Okay, but this is again about single points of failure. Don't have just one person who is able to make the changes, don't rely on Github.

I agree that the ToS clause is very broad, and that (if the email is real) that the timeframe is short.

But that seems to be standard across different providers.

For example, Google will close several types of account without warning.

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

#299

Post by maccard »

findjashua wrote: post #129
toomuchtodo wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

okay, i'll bite. My employer recently made the switch from Hipchat to Slack, and I can't really tell any difference in functionality. The only thing slack has is that it's pretty/shiny, which doesn't really make any difference to me personally. If anything, I miss being able to arrange the channels like I could in Hipchat. Also, what does Github give you over Gitlab?

We moved from lynq to slack, and the first thing I noticed is I have a gigabyte less memory. Slack eats memory worse than atlassian products.

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

#300

Post by vidarh »

gfosco wrote: post #207
vidarh wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like Github best, but will readily admit it's mostly just because I'm most used to it. Like you I use both, with Bitbucket for my private stuff and Github for the public stuff. The latter mostly because that's where people are.

I gladly pay for the Medium plan just for my own personal private usage. It's a wonder these services last as long as they do, when you guys don't want to support them.

The point is the nature of git means I don't really need any of them. They're convenient as a public dumping ground (Github) or "backup" (Bitbucket) with a decent web ui, but if they disappeared it'd make very little practical difference for me (other than recruiters having to find me via another site).
Post reply on HN