61–70 of 230 posts
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.
I got five words into that article and hit back to find a different source. > "Little-known social coding start-up GitHub..." Really? The Gigaom is a much better read. http://gigaom.com/2012/07/09/github-finally-raises-funding-1...
Consider the audience of the WSJ. I doubt Github is known to more than 5% of the WJS audience.
2 months ago github was all "we don't need VC funding we're completely profitable"...
Sure they can be like any startup and get some nieve devs to join up with the whole "We're doing big things and can become huge, you can be a part of this, and be millionaires!". But they'd probably rather give their devs what their worth.
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…
Also it backups to your S3 account.
I got five words into that article and hit back to find a different source. > "Little-known social coding start-up GitHub..." Really? The Gigaom is a much better read. http://gigaom.com/2012/07/09/github-finally-raises-funding-1...
Consider the audience of the WSJ. I doubt Github is known to more than 5% of the WJS audience.
I hate to crash the party, but this is a very odd move for an awesome company and a service that I use and Github has always been against taking money. Actually, TPW has used some very harsh words criticizing startups that choose to take VC money. Now, Github raises 100 gazillion dollars? How the f*ck do they plan on spending that wisely? Sure, it's nice to have that sum in the bank. But, in all honesty, someone has…
Probably makes it easier for them to sell the company to bigco for $1bn.
What a great way to ruin a perfectly awesome company.
why would it ruin them? Given the valuation people are talking about, they sold less than 15% of the business - they'll probably retain enough control to do whatever they want with it and probably try new things... I personally know at least one company that has been profitable from the very beginning and took 3 rounds of VC already, always on the same terms: "we don't need your money, so we'll sell you a very small…
is it possible the maximal risk they encountered when building github with their own cash helped make the great product github is today? history has shown time and time again if you give someone a long enough rope they will hang themselves, doesn't mean that's githubs fate of course, but they're certainly opening a door of influence that wasn't around through the initial building of a great product.
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…
TPW (or some early GH employee) has posted somewhere that yes, the cost of servers on your own is cheaper. However, the original goal of GitHub was to build a tool that allowed collaboration easier. You pay for the experience and the tools and the network IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The person who figures out how to get movie/music studios and the like to use version control is going to be very, very rich.
Just curious, what makes you think they don't already use version control prolifically? What opportunity do you see? One studio I'm familiar with has some assets with change history back through to SCCS -- back through RCS, CVS, and P4. These places have long dealt with large groups of people collaborating on shared files that are constantly changing, forking, merging, etc.
I was kindof assuming that it would be the same for mid to smaller sized movie/tv studios as well, but at the same time I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you can get a plugin for Premier or whatever that does it.
I know for a fact that there are many largish advertising agencies out there who have fileservers with hundreds of ProjectName01, ProjectName02 etc style directories.
Why do you think apple brought "Versions" or whatever its called in with lion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
TPW (or some early GH employee) has posted somewhere that yes, the cost of servers on your own is cheaper. However, the original goal of GitHub was to build a tool that allowed collaboration easier. You pay for the experience and the tools and the network IMO.
Ah, gotcha. I guess I was missing out on the social aspect of it. But I have to wonder: if you're hosting that many private repos...how much does "social" play into it?
For me, the private repos are more about having them where I have my other code.