191–200 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pixar uses Perforce. Over 1000 users, 12 million ops/day, 40 million changelists, 115 million files, >20 TB data, and accessed by 12,000 cpu renderfarm. If you're dealing with large amounts of binary data it's basically a solved problem and Perforce is the answer. An expensive answer but an answer. http://www.perforce.com/sites/default/files/storageforfilmas...
They seriously have 40 MM clns? I find that extremely hard to believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pixar uses Perforce. Over 1000 users, 12 million ops/day, 40 million changelists, 115 million files, >20 TB data, and accessed by 12,000 cpu renderfarm. If you're dealing with large amounts of binary data it's basically a solved problem and Perforce is the answer. An expensive answer but an answer. http://www.perforce.com/sites/default/files/storageforfilmas...
They seriously have 40 MM clns? I find that extremely hard to believe.
I can't help but think that this investment marks the Pets.com point in this investment cycle. GitHub is essentially a web interface to a single open-source DVCS. The switching costs to using another DVCS such as Mercurial (which I personally prefer) or another Git hosting provider are minimal. There are no barriers to entry since Git is and always will be free. There are very few network effect benefits to using Git…
Your argument is contradictory. If they only need to beat those 2%, they are not under pressure to deliver spectacular returns .
It should go without saying that Treasuries are risk-free since the government can print dollars to pay back its debts. But in this economy, investors are willing to get negative real returns (i.e., after inflation) on Treasuries since they're more concerned about the return of their money than returns on their money.
(For fairly approachable commentary on the current macro investment climate, I'd recommend reading Bill Gross' monthly columns at http://www.pimco.com/EN/Insights/Pages/InvestmentOutlookOver...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love GitHub, but anyone else felt it was a little immodest for TPW to say they'd "hire Marc" if they could? Can't put it into words, but I don't feel that Tom is in the position to make that statement.
Yeh...to be honest...that kinda irked me too. It feels like he is trying to assert his "geek cred", by making sure both Marc and Github's users know who is still in charge. But it feels a bit trite. That being said, I wish them all the best. The truth is, if there is anyone that I think would be an awesome partner for Github it is AH. So I hope they do awesome stuff together.
I have to imagine that a chunk of that money is to provide liquidity to the founders, which they very much deserve. I don't really see how this is a bad thing. They were very much profitable, and were likely able to dictate the terms of the deal. Also, the money came from one of the most, if not THE most, reputable and respected VC firms.
Yes, founders maybe took some money off he table, that's good for them, no question. But the company is now troubled.
So Linus Torvalds has created two billion-dollar industries in his spare time?
Okay, a question: I have a github ( http://github.com/blhack -- nothing too interesting there), but only use it in the "free" way; saving my javascript stuff, and keeping track of some arduino projects. "Github" and "money" in the same thought here triggered me wondering about maybe buying a monthly plan from them, and letting them host all of my code for work, play, etc. (stuff I'm too embarrassed to release, ha) Ma…
Private repositories are a limited resource on Github for most of us due to the pricing. This encourages people to open up their stuff. Small projects that would be otherwise kept under cover are shown to the world, because we feel more comfortable in showing up unfinished code than putting up another $$/month.
And this same applies especially to cloning. If private repositories were free, quite many would probably tinker with the cloned things in private. "Forcing" us to do it in public has made Github what it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, with this $100M, they can really dominate the code hosting market? There's a reasonable case to be made that they're either going to or already dominate the code hosting market anyways, depending on how big you define it. The only way $100M makes sense is if they're expanding into one or multiple other things.
Well, a natural focal point is enterprise. I could imagine (this is pure speculation) that there are a number of fairly cumbersome features holding back some large enterprise customers, but which has been de-prioritized in favor of the cloud product where gains are more immediate and viral. In general, there are probably many teams holding back on GitHub because of some missing feature which didn't make sense to buil…
Standard. Really?