What we've learned from building Ghost after 5 years and $3M
1–10 of 182 posts
Re: What we've learned from building Ghost after 5 years and $3M
#2I'm a little surprised to read that Ghost doesn't use gitlab. Given the companies are both open source and distributed work forces; not to mention they call out github as a big headache.
>How open source works is: If you want something, you can build it.
Re: What we've learned from building Ghost after 5 years and $3M
#3I'm a little surprised to read that Ghost doesn't use gitlab. Given the companies are both open source and distributed work forces; not to mention they call out github as a big headache. >How open source works is: If you want something, you can build it.
The problems listed were with the interaction model. There's nothing I've seen in GitLab's UX that would indicate it's any better.
Re: What we've learned from building Ghost after 5 years and $3M
#4I've nothing but a positive experience using the self-hosted Ghost instance for some clients. Glad to see this transparency and that they're doing well.
Re: What we've learned from building Ghost after 5 years and $3M
#5I'm a little surprised to read that Ghost doesn't use gitlab. Given the companies are both open source and distributed work forces; not to mention they call out github as a big headache. >How open source works is: If you want something, you can build it.
The problems listed were with the interaction model. There's nothing I've seen in GitLab's UX that would indicate it's any better.
Unfortunately I think Github itself has a lot to do with this. The product has become too transactional - more support tool than collaboration. And Github themselves show remarkable disinterest in the open source community as a whole - they give us beta access to test new features every so often. That's about it. There's no wider involvement at all.
I read it as two parts. Interactions are flawed & Github doesn't really care about open source. Just one guys opinion, and my wife works for gitlab, but there is a deep commitment to open source and contributors, as well as an abundance of places for deeper dialogues to occur, between projects / contributors / the general public / gitlab.
+1 for also living in Minneapolis. We should get coffee.
Re: What we've learned from building Ghost after 5 years and $3M
#6I didn't realize Ghost was a non-profit. Very noble. The feedback in Github is interesting. Ghost is probably more likely to have issues with demanding users than, say, mongodb.
Very cool and inspiring post. That said:
- Ghost's marketing materials tend to outright lie to users when making comparisons to WordPress or other platforms.
- I dislike OSS projects that hide their OSS nature. Why does a user need to pay $29/mo for an entry level blog? Why isn't there any obvious mention of the OSS nature of the project on the pricing page, home page, or features page?
- What's been done about the memory issues? Last time I tried ghost, it was a bit of a memory hog.
Re: What we've learned from building Ghost after 5 years and $3M
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problems listed were with the interaction model. There's nothing I've seen in GitLab's UX that would indicate it's any better.
Unfortunately I think Github itself has a lot to do with this. The product has become too transactional - more support tool than collaboration. And Github themselves show remarkable disinterest in the open source community as a whole - they give us beta access to test new features every so often. That's about it. There's no wider involvement at all. I read it as two parts. Interactions are flawed & Github doesn't rea…
Huh, I also live in Minneapolis.
How many HNers are around here?
Re: What we've learned from building Ghost after 5 years and $3M
#8> The best marketing we've done has been to launch, over and over again.
That's my favorite takeaway from the article. Seems like a difficult thing to do in practice, but also something I've been considering lately.
Anyone else have experience with doing repeated launches that they'd be willing to share?
Re: What we've learned from building Ghost after 5 years and $3M
#9I didn't realize Ghost was a non-profit. Very noble. The feedback in Github is interesting. Ghost is probably more likely to have issues with demanding users than, say, mongodb. Very cool and inspiring post. That said: - Ghost's marketing materials tend to outright lie to users when making comparisons to WordPress or other platforms. - I dislike OSS projects that hide their OSS nature. Why does a user need to pay $29…
Their home page at ghost.org literally says "Ghost is a fully open source, adaptable platform for building and running a modern online publication" at the top.
Re: What we've learned from building Ghost after 5 years and $3M
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately I think Github itself has a lot to do with this. The product has become too transactional - more support tool than collaboration. And Github themselves show remarkable disinterest in the open source community as a whole - they give us beta access to test new features every so often. That's about it. There's no wider involvement at all. I read it as two parts. Interactions are flawed & Github doesn't rea…
Huh, I also live in Minneapolis. How many HNers are around here?
There are a few. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? A meetup?