News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by nitrogen on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:07PM (#13189948)
Ignoring the fact that the VCs want to get paid and GitHub's employees want to keep working, how big of a skeleton crew would it take to keep a site like GitHub running in "maintenance" mode?
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by Ericson2314 on Thursday December 15, 2016 @07:41PM (#13190105)
Ask Craigslist, or soon Twitter?
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by adventured on Thursday December 15, 2016 @09:13PM (#13190531)
Post VC investment, GitHub would never be allowed to exist in maintenance mode. It would be liquidated in one form or another if things were that dire. Once they took the venture capital, the possible outcomes narrowed considerably.
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by empath75 on Friday December 16, 2016 @01:20AM (#13191459)
They could go non-profit like the Mozilla foundation.
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by nitrogen on Friday December 16, 2016 @01:48AM (#13191554)
But not if the owners (investors) want their money back instead.
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by asenna on Thursday December 15, 2016 @08:09PM (#13190266)
Can you really put something in "maintenance" mode without killing it?

Maintaining the app and not moving forward with new features and adding value (because of lack of resources), I would assume it would just die eventually.

Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by hyperbovine on Thursday December 15, 2016 @09:51PM (#13190700)
I don't understand this obsession with the first derivative of value. GitHub already provides loads of value. I understand they need resources to keep the lights on, but they could do that by recouping a tiny fee from their users and most everyone would be happy.
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by Trundle on Friday December 16, 2016 @12:55AM (#13191359)
They're not without alternatives already though. In a changing environment to stay still is to fall behind.
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by TeMPOraL on Friday December 16, 2016 @05:18AM (#13192256)
And to move is to risk a quick death. I wished existing brands stopped innovating so much. That's e.g. what got Pebble killed.

Doubly so when a brand reaches infrastructure level - like Github, or arguably Dropbox. Just don't screw with the product that's working well. Not breaking things isn't expensive.

Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by hyperbovine on Friday December 16, 2016 @04:29AM (#13192093)
That's not as big an issue when there are network effects -- look at Craigslist. Plus, what killer feature is bitbucket going to add at this point to make everyone want to switch? They're practically the same product. All the major innovation happened years ago.
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by rumcajz on Friday December 16, 2016 @05:36AM (#13192317)
Clickable code view would be nice, e.g:

http://lxr.linux.no/linux+v4.9/kernel/async.c

Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by robinhood on Friday December 16, 2016 @10:13AM (#13193767)
Thanks for the idea. This would be awesome indeed. I've created an issue on GitLab for this: https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/25762
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by tome on Friday December 16, 2016 @09:11AM (#13193303)
This would be wonderful.
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by lowmess on Thursday December 15, 2016 @10:10PM (#13190780)
don't they already attempt to do that though? i don't consider $7/month a large fee. (granted, they could probably get more subscribers at $3-5, but i'm assuming they landed on $7 for a reason)
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by sitkack on Friday December 16, 2016 @02:43AM (#13191750)
They make vast more quantities off of actual businesses. The $7 repo fee is literally a soft wind on the face of Everest.
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by curried_haskell on Friday December 16, 2016 @07:42AM (#13192839)
I really hate this, because this is what bloats and kills products. It's never complete, it always needs more features, until it implodes.

It's the corpse model of product development.

Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by daxorid on Friday December 16, 2016 @07:41AM (#13192831)
...it's a source control company. What additional features could I possibly want? They serve their purpose just fine.
[dead]
Re:GitHub lost $66M in nine months of 2016 by bato on Friday December 16, 2016 @01:04AM (#13191395)
They could probably their staff what?

Looks like your sentence is incomplete.