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

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

#301

Post by annnnd » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 8:51 AM UTC

kschrader wrote: post #183

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…

We're working on something to split the middle at http://Clubhouse.io As easy to use as Trello for small teams, but scales up as you grow (although we probably cap out at 100-ish devs right now, not quite to Jira's level yet.) (Full disclosure: CEO/Founder)

Looks awesome - but please tell me you will have download-and-install option? Hosting solution is not acceptable to us and this could differentiate you from hundreds of others in this area.

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

#302

Post by afandian » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 8:55 AM UTC

onion2k wrote: post #200

ams6110 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a perfectly good word that should not be banned: This patch retards the rate of retry attempts after three consecutive failures

It wouldn't be banned in that context.

The whole argument hangs on that point. I don't know where your optimism comes from. Seeing a lot of human behaviour on the net in this area, I have pretty much zero confidence that the right decision would always be made.

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

#303

Post by omegaham » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:05 AM UTC

ploxiln wrote: post #217

scubadude wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think for a minute that you had an intellectual disability. Would you be comfortable with people casually using the word?

This reaction to the word will over time also come to the replacement word that people will need to come up with to refer to the condition. "idiot" and "imbecile" used to be the terms used by medical professionals to refer to mentally retarded people in the 50s and 60s. Then those terms became insults, so they started using the term "mentally retarded". Now that retard has become an insult, another word will have to…

Also known as the "euphemism treadmill."

The next phase has already begun - "You were one of the special children, weren't you" is a pretty common start to an ass-chewing in the military. They'll have to move on pretty soon.

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

#304

Post by vasilakisfil » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:16 AM UTC

I thought they could fund themselves...

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

#305

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:29 AM UTC

lallysingh wrote: post #228

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 wrote something on top -- it imports github and google code issues and google tasks into emacs org-mode. Then I work on it from there. More than good enough for single users who've got to track a lot of crap. https://github.com/lally/org-issue-sync Open source, free to use.

As a die-hard Emacs/Org Mode user, thank you, thank you, thank you!

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

#306

Post by issaria » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:34 AM UTC

blazespin wrote: post #112

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…

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...

Wouldn't surprise me if massive marketing and monetization following.

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

#307

Post by aikah » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:41 AM UTC

cma wrote: post #143

dogma1138 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>in which Google Drive or Dropbox can also fit in that category Sourceforge offered shell access for SVN; Google drive and dropbox wouldn't support branching, merging etc. To say sourceforge is in a category closer to them than to github is ridiculous.

You could implement an app that follows the git protocol on top of Google drive or Dropbox 'filesystem'. In fact, that would be a pretty neat project.

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

#308

Post by peteretep » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:41 AM UTC

ghuntley wrote: post #268

peteretep wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any CTO signing off on $37,500USD a year for 150 developers, when you can get unlimited developers on Bitbucket for $2,400, probably needs to be fired.

I see you have not had much experience with large companies; $37k is nothing there are line managers who can sign off on amounts larger than this :-)

An ability to sign off more than that does not mean it's a good use of company money.

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

#309

Post by spdionis » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:41 AM UTC

maccard wrote: post #299

findjashua wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It uses around 300 mb on my machine. It is a lot but surely not 1 gb...

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

#310

Post by peteretep » Thu, Jul 30, 2015, 9:42 AM UTC

vdaniuk wrote: post #267

peteretep wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any CTO signing off on $37,500USD a year for 150 developers, when you can get unlimited developers on Bitbucket for $2,400, probably needs to be fired.

Are you sure? The price of the Github's service is ~$20.8 per developer per month. This is about 10-30 minutes of developers time worth per month. Adapting to Bitbucket's workflow and learning its UI would take much more time.

If you've hired a developer for whom using Bitbucket instead of Github takes 10-30 minutes more effort a month, you need to rereview your hiring process.