Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gitlab S-1

sec.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 295 posts

Re: Gitlab S-1

#231

Post by ablekh »

I think that the most fascinating fact about this upcoming IPO is that, to the best of my knowledge, GitLab is the first remote-only (i.e., no-headquarters) company in the world filing for an IPO. In any case (meaning even if I'm wrong that they are the first), I wish them luck and welcome the competition.

It's interesting to see that GitLab has adopted dual-class common stock structure, though I'm certainly not surprised. Some people and organizations (including some investment firms and stock exchanges) are not fans of multi-class equity structures, but I'm not sure that this fact would have any significant negative impact on GitLab's IPO. At least, these popular 10:1 or slightly less popular 20:1 voting schemes are not as aggressive as Palantir's three-class stock structure, where Class F (just three founders - out of five!) would hold practically 50% of the total voting power.

One strange thing that I've noticed while browsing through this S-1 document, though, is the lack of mention of GitLab's co-founder (Dmitriy Zaporozhets) in the stockholders table (p. 148). I would expect him to hold about the same ownership of the Class B shares as the other co-founder Sytse Sijbrandij holds, but definitely more than 5%, which requires a disclosure there. I'm not sure how to interpret the absence of his name.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#232

Post by Lorin »

INTPenis wrote: post #148
ignoramous wrote: post #112

Gitlab is one of the pioneers of "remote-first" [0] and "building in public" [1], to the extent of sometimes even live-streaming CEO meetings [2] and sales pitches [3] Gitlab, I believe, informs the common strategy behind most other source-available ycombinator enterprise startups: the buyer-based open-core model [4] Congratulations Gitlab. You're far from a copycat and deserve all the success for relentless executio…

Yeah I absolutely support Gitlab and love seeing new projects use Gitlab over Github. But to be fair, they have a massive backlog of issues to fix. Basic issues too, like variables not expanding correctly in CI jobs, or Google not being able to index projects on gitlab.com unless there's another page already linking to it. I've been using Gitlab.com and Gitlab on-prem since 2013 and over the years I've found many of…

Took em' about 2-3 years to add the "What's new" link in the top menu bar since the issue was opened.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#233

Post by statictype »

foolfoolz wrote: post #214
statictype wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twilio’s product is an API. The end-user of (most of) their products are developers.

the product is the communications. the people on the phone. reading sms. getting emails. the end user of twilio’s products probably have never heard of twilio and don’t even know their using it

Perhaps a better way to phrase it: Twilio’s customers are developers.

Their products are built to be used by developers.

As an analogy, AWS’s customer is Netflix. Not the end user who is watching a movie that streams out of an EC2 instance.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#234

Post by sevenlake »

easton wrote: post #48

So GitLab is advertising that it's the one place to do the entire software development lifecycle. Are there any big shops that have converted to 100% (or almost 100%) GitLab? Out of the six big names they list on their website, the only one that they have a case study for is Thomson Reuters, and they used Jenkins for CI (and it's from 2017, so a lot of this other functionality wasn't built yet). It's just a somewhat…

Intel was (is?) using it to some extent. I owned a repo from 2019 - 2020 and there was a big push/timeline of all the different repo services and their EOL/move to Gitlab. Unsure it that's still the case or if the new POR is GitHub, thought I heard whispers of that about to change before I left.

Anyways, I had to migrate like 100+ users into Gitlab and setup/babysit the CI/CD output of that repository (which is not software, just documentation but the build/release process is not trivial). I actually didn't have too bad of a time all things considered, and none of the problems described here. Unsure how much of that was use case or people above me keeping my life easy but I was a happy user.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#235

Post by BelenusMordred »

ignoramous wrote: post #112

Gitlab is one of the pioneers of "remote-first" [0] and "building in public" [1], to the extent of sometimes even live-streaming CEO meetings [2] and sales pitches [3] Gitlab, I believe, informs the common strategy behind most other source-available ycombinator enterprise startups: the buyer-based open-core model [4] Congratulations Gitlab. You're far from a copycat and deserve all the success for relentless executio…

> Gitlab is one of the pioneers of "remote-first"

I once looked at their wages when I was in Asia, they wouldn't even cover my rent working full-time. Until they pay for skill rather than area I'm going to be a sceptic sorry, far better companies to work for.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#236

Post by [deleted] »

zndr wrote: post #76
LewisVerstappen wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting, thanks for the link. Median salary seems to be $170k according to Levels.fyi -> https://www.levels.fyi/company/GitLab/salaries/Software-Engi...

You can actually see their salary calculator here https://about.gitlab.com/handbook/total-rewards/compensation...

[deleted]

Re: Gitlab S-1

#237

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

jupp0r wrote: post #181
ModernMech wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm the opposite actually. I do all my dev on Gitlab, and mirror on Github for the exposure.

Maybe this is the time for a big shout out to the creators of git for making use cases like these a first class citizen.

And imagine that… it hasn’t stopped other sites from making their successful products around a free and open backbone.

Re: Gitlab S-1

#238

Post by PaywallBuster »

b9a2cab5 wrote: post #155
RC_ITR wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but burning $183 to add $71 in revenue is a tough pill to swallow. Sure, it probably will pay back eventually, but as an investor, you really have to be bullish on retention/expansion. to get a reasonable LTV out of that. Most bulls have been right in the past, but eventually the music stops (look at the tenuous position Slack was in before acquisition).

You just need to be confident the LTV estimate is correct. That being said I'm pretty bearish on dev tooling in general as it seems like companies don't want to pay for it (but they will pay for expensive AWS services!)

or use it's subpar _cloud native_ tools for the "magic integration"

Re: Gitlab S-1

#240

Post by jb_gericke »

oweiler wrote: post #159
ModernMech wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, Gitlab has been leading the way for a while now, consistently introducing new features that Github eventually copies. It's a real testament to the power of competition. I first started using Gitlab due to free private repositories, which Github eventually added. Gitlab had free built-in CI/CD first, and Github eventually followed. I'm still on Gitlab these days despite Github catching up, and still enjoying feat…

Except Github Actions is leaps and bounds above Gitlab CI.

Yeah also a doubter, you can get to pretty DRY workflows with GitLab extends, caching is great, built in artifact repositories (including image registry), workflows/rules on when to build (i.e. run certain tasks specifically off MRs), granular approval rules, review environments and the paid for version has pretty awesome security primitives that are really easy to incorporate (sast/dast/container scanning et al.). I may be a bit biased but having kicked the tyres on actions my feeling is GL is miles ahead on the CI front.
Post reply on HN