GitHub Is Undergoing a Full-Blown Overhaul As Execs and Employees Depart (businessinsider.com) 274
mattydread23 writes: This is what happens when hot startups grow up. [GitHub] CEO Chris Wanstrath is imposing management structure where there wasn't much before, and execs are departing, partly because the company is cracking down on remote work. It's a lot like Facebook in 2009. Business Insider has the full inside story based on multiple sources in and close to the company.
not now (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you're cool like Linus, you can throw it on FTP and let the world mirror it.
Re: bunch of lazy sobs (Score:4, Insightful)
"Open Code of Conduct" craziness! (Score:5, Informative)
We should never forget about the Open Code of Conduct [github.com] debacle. GitHub is listed under the "What companies or communities support or use the Open Code of Conduct?" section on that page.
Read the comments at https://github.com/todogroup/opencodeofconduct/issues/84 [github.com]. It's unbelievable how hypocritical some of the people are. The stuff about "reverse -isms" is particularly fucked up.
fast growth (Score:5, Insightful)
GitHub has hit "hypergrowth," growing from about 300 to nearly 500 employees in less than a year, with over 70 people joining last quarter alone.
Any time you have that kind of growth, you are going to have culture change, and it's going to make people upset if they liked the old culture.
In this case, management is responding to the new people by trying to maintain tighter control on this. This involves hiring a lot of middle managers (mainly so they have someone to order around) and generally treating the programmers like they are less competent and can't manage themselves (probably a lot of the new ones are less competent).
What will happen next is Github will start sucking, and a new competitor will come and replace them (possibly Sourceforge, if they manage to continue with the same enthusiasm they've started with recently, and manage to turn that enthusiasm in to their product).
Re:fast growth (Score:5, Insightful)
SourceForge's death spiral hits me right in the feels as much as any other Slashdotter, but I am pretty convinced that new competitor which will dethrone GitHub will be GitLab. Basically the same product, but open source. Similar monetization model for enterprise use. That's who I'm rooting for these days.
Sorry SourceForge. You had your chance.
Re: (Score:3)
They could convert it into a gitlab instance...
Gitlab is dead slow. If they improved that, they could be the new kings of the hill.
Re:fast growth (Score:5, Informative)
Re:fast growth (Score:5, Interesting)
Sourceforge lost track of what they were doing. They pursued ad revenue on their web pages, rather than quality of service and the business model of converting free open source and freeware software authors into paying customers.
So far, github has done very well at doing so and providing "5 9's" of reliable service. They've definitely been far more reliable than the in-house wikis and source repositories I've worked with in house and working with partner companies.And as much as I appreciate that Sourceforge has long-running CVS and Subversion projects, I genuinely wish they'd simply migrate and discard that technology. They're not reliable enough to use for the necessary 24x7 access to publish updates in a Subversion or CVS repository.
Re: (Score:2)
So far, github has done very well at doing so and providing "5 9's" of reliable service.
Wow, they sure lost that one [google.com] if it was ever a goal.
.And as much as I appreciate that Sourceforge has long-running CVS and Subversion projects, I genuinely wish they'd simply migrate and discard that technology.
You can use git with sourceforge. You've been able to for a long time, I think longer than github has existed. Some people actually prefer CVS, believe it or not. I don't understand those people, but different strokes for different folks, and sourceforge provides.
Re: (Score:2)
I was shocked to see a rather major component from one of our partners, a very well regarded partner, using RCS for their version control..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The failure the other night was a real problem. I'm aware of a number of automated continuous integration systems that had problems with it.That brought github's reliabllity down to about "4 9's", which is still very good compared to most running systems.
I agree you _can_ use git with Sourceforge. The difficulty is the number of projects that continue to rely on the centralized, single canonical source code approach of CVS and Subversion. It makes independent development much less safe, and far more difficu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Git has been around for quite a while now, and it's become widely known and widely adopted. So, no matter how good it is, hipster nerds are going to be moving to something else en masse in the near future.
I'm just waiting for the onslaught of Slashdot submissions announcing it (whatever it is).
Re:fast growth (Score:5, Interesting)
If anyone can take over the throne from GitHub, why would it not be BitBucket? They produce the excellent and free Git client Sourcetree [sourcetreeapp.com], and all around have a more reasonable pricing model than GitHub.
It's not like I don't have a GitHub account, everyone does, but I also have a BitBucket account and have no qualms switching to them entirely if GitHub really starts being a problem (well, MORE of a problem since they did just recently have a big outage... perhaps that was early warning).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: fast growth (Score:3, Funny)
Is this a joke. Atlassiam drops products as often as Google. A professional organization can't depend on a company that wishy washy.
Which apps? (Score:2)
Browsing source on my repositories I can use Ctrl-F just fine - which other apps have you encountered that?
I have to admit I've never tried using the UI over dial-up, but that seems like a pretty niche issue for most people. You could still use a command line or other git client instead which would perform a lot better with that kind of network constraint... I totally agree with those who say the modern web has gotten too bloated but for something like BitBucket I would hate to lose some nice features the
Re: (Score:2)
The AC is full of shit. Both Github and Bitbucket are equally slow over dialup (about 1 minute to load a page here, not bad when the average page takes closer to 5 minutes after blocking the ads and such) and of course CTRL-F works on the page, at least with SeaMonkey.
I started using Bitbucket due to needing to clone a Mercurial repository and they were the only one to support Mercurial and I will say that Mercurial is horrible over dial-up with it often suddenly timing out after 10 minutes or so whereas Gi
Re: (Score:2)
The incredibly slow, unreliable reporting of commits to pull/push also resulted in the fun situation of having a resolved marge conflict I couldn't push because there were commits I needed to pull and it wouldn't let me pull changes because I had an unpushed merge. After an hour of trying to find out how I could fix this, the solution ended up being "delete the local repository and do it all again".
Re: (Score:2)
Why do they need 500 employees? I'd be struggling to figure out what any of them do.
Except for the sales execs that encourage Microsoft, Badieu, Facebook and Google (none of whom have any experience with servers) to host their opensource projects on GitHub... for the publicity?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah nearly one in five employees works in sales. Probably another one in five works in management in some capacity, and another one in five works in support roles, leaving you with perhaps 200 engineers? That's still a lot of engineers, but at 4 engineers per team that's 50 products or product segments they can focus on.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's it, I'm replacing my rubber ducky with a "hyperspace" button from Asteroids.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, management is responding to the new people by trying to maintain tighter control on this. This involves hiring a lot of middle managers (mainly so they have someone to order around) and generally treating the programmers like they are less competent and can't manage themselves (probably a lot of the new ones are less competent).
No, it's more likely the managers who are clamping down are the incompetent ones - they don't really know how to manage, so they attempt to fake it. Then, shortly afterward, the talented employees start leaving.
But, in the end, you're right... that's when the suckage begins.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, it doesn't matter how smart each individual is, you have to have leadership and some structure to carry an organization forward.
It has nothing to do with smartness, it's "ability to self manage."
And "some leadership and structure" is not the same as "treating the programmers like they are less competent and can't manage themselves." As a practical heuristic: when the ratio of managers to programmers starts increasing, the quality of the product starts decreasing.
Re: (Score:2)
As a practical heuristic: when the ratio of managers to programmers starts increasing, the quality of the product starts decreasing.
It isn't practical or reasonable if you extend it all the way out to the extremes, such as here where there was no managers at all, and then they added some non-zero number.
The reason your heuristic is usually true is that there are usually already some number of managers chosen according to mainstream business practices. It is foolish to presume that whatever is true in the middle of the curve remains true even at the theoretical extreme value.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't practical or reasonable if you extend it all the way out to the extremes.....The reason your heuristic is usually true......
Yup. That's why it's a heuristic, because it's usually true. If it were always true, it would be a law, not a heuristic.
Re: (Score:3)
When a business is small, every employee can have a good general idea of how every part of the business is progressing and so can make decisions in their area of competence that benefit the business as a whole. The problem is that above a certain size it becomes unrealistic to expect everyone to be following everything going on in the business as well as getting on with their own work. Informal information flow becomes unreliable and a lot of resources can end up being wasted in uncoordinated work.
The solution isn't to hire managers to 'control' people. Of course the CEO has a view of everything and leads the company, and there are many subgroups in the company, and you are right that someone needs (or someones) to go around and communicate the direction to the subgroups, and coordinate things. They also need to make sure the team has the resources they need to keep going, or replace someone who quits.
But when you have managers who are planning out the individual tasks and hours of each sprint fo
Re: (Score:2)
Another way to handle it is to bring the new people on as underlings, and over a few months bring them up to full developers. One example for doing that would be to giv
Re: (Score:2)
Give a different book to each new arrival. Put them all into the same, new greenfield project and let them fight it out. Adopt the winners' methodology as the new company culture.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Onboarding" via training is a waste of time. Hire them on a probationary period.
You can try that, but you'll have trouble hiring good people because good programmers won't be willing to submit to that.
Re: (Score:2)
The story is that they can grow from 300 to 500, and aside from some whiners they're making a great success at it, have maintained positive cash flow the whole time, and are meeting the challenges.
You missed the whole story of this company. They had 0 supervisors. Now they have a few. They didn't have the management systems in place to continue growing, so they added them before anything bad happened, before they got to 800. They didn't need to do something that they didn't do, they did the thing. And they'
No remote work - no job application (Score:2, Insightful)
No remote work?
Github just fell off my list of places to work at :-(
That sucks, there are not many places which are good for remote work.
Re: No remote work - no job application (Score:5, Insightful)
No remote working? Quite the irony for a cloud company most of its customers couldn't even locate on a map, that peddles a distributed, decentralised source code control product.
as for their growth... I understand their need to make money and assure their market position. Couldn't they just do that by being good at git and not worrying about all the other fluff?
Re: No remote work - no job application (Score:5, Insightful)
. I understand their need to make money and assure their market position. Couldn't they just do that by being good at git and not worrying about all the other fluff?
The other stuff is what makes it worth using. Without the fluff, it's just git, and I can run that anywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about proletarianization. The cabal of self-described capitalists who own nearly all the Silicon Valley "startup" companies overwhelmingly come from backgrounds of social privilege and inherited wealth. This cabal is waging low intensity class war against tech workers, most of whom come from middle and lower-middle class families.
The VC class vehemently hates the idea of tech workers having any significant degree of autonomy and human dignity. They demand that all tech workers be chained to desk
Re: (Score:3)
Management structure and meritocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, I don't know if I'd have an issue with a lack of remote working options or a shift to a more hierarchical management structure, but what I read about their diversity and social impact team would certainly be enough to make me run, screaming. Also, they brought in a former Yahoo exec...
Former Yahoo and Flickr exec (Score:2)
Yes and Yahoo and Flickr furtunes have gone well.
When will these people learn.
Re:Management structure and meritocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, I kind of had that same sinking feeling when one of the very first official things the new CEO did was get rid of a rug in the lobby because the slogan espoused a meritocracy... you know, the completely radical concept of judging people solely on merit, which somehow offends SJW's and feminists...
http://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug
It was apparently just a preview of things to come. Github is finished long-term. Their primary source of revenue is from a technical product made for technical people. The instant you value some SJW corporate bullshit over technical competence is the exact instant that you lose your innovative edge in a fast-paced technical place like silicon valley. Your customers really don't care whether your staff has the requisite token proportional ethnic/gender representation, they just need them to be capable enough to ensure that the uptime on their repos is more reliable than a rusted-out yugo. They don't give a shit whether you have harmonized safe spaces that nurture inclusion, they just want someone to implement that new innovative feature that your fast-moving startup competitor is beating you over the head with. etc. etc.
Re: (Score:2)
slogan espoused a meritocracy... you know, the completely radical concept of judging people solely on technical merit,
You're confusing a meritocracy with judging solely on merit. So, let's say you judge people solely on merit and accept only the most meritorious? Will you have a meritocracy where you have only the very best? Well, let's see...
Let's try some reductio ad absurdum and stick to the idea that technical merit is the only deciding factor.
Consider the situation where one of the technically best peo
Re: (Score:3)
You're on one hand asserting that a meritocracy can only determine merit on one single thing - in your example, technical capability - and yet, you're then judging that meritocracy on things that are outside it's definition of merit. This is entirely nonsensical.
If you feel that niceness to team members is an important merit in your meritocracy then you must also include that in your judgement of merit. Thus someone with high technical skill but beats other members of the team up would end up with low merit
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Their management structure is still "flat," using business terms. Before it was "completely flat without supervisors," but companies don't grow and not add supervisors. I hate to say it, but employees just aren't that awesome, even at a hip startup.
If you limit "successful companies with a flat org chart" to ones without supervisors, there are no names on the list with even as many employees as github.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your ranting sounds strange, contradictory and delusional, which is a shame because there might actually be some good points in there. The business insider article makes it sound like the so called diversity team have moved away from trying to promote diversity and into outright racism, oh and sexism too got good measure. Because if you're a bigot, why limit options...
Honestly though when you pepper your post with so much jargon and hyperbole it's more likely to make people think you're nuts than to listen.
Re:Management structure and meritocracy (Score:5, Informative)
He's not wrong, just look at the subreddit dedicated to outing the lunacy going on over there.
https://www.reddit.com/r/gitinaction
I'll give a few examples:
https://archive.is/JzOoj scroll down for the insanity
https://github.com/apple/swift/pull/165 people complaining about the labels Master/Slave, yes seriously
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/8 the banning of a user who used the eggplant emoji
https://github.com/womenwhocodedc/organization/issues/26 complaining about "Too many CIS(straight) White Men at WWCDC"
https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015 complaining about gendered pronouns
Remind me, where is the Meirtocracy in all this again?
Re: (Score:3)
He's not wrong, just look at the subreddit dedicated to outing the lunacy going on over there.
Did I say he was? No, I said he sounded like a nutter which heavily distracts from what he's trying to say. Which as I pointed out was a shame since it sounds like they've wound up with a diversity department which is both racist and sexist.
Remind me, where is the Meirtocracy in all this again?
Personally, I don't think a pure meritocracy can exist.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the benefit of a meritocracy?
I'm quasi-serious about the question, in that, while I don't suggest there is a better system, I don't quite grok the theoretical reason why I really want a meritocracy.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the benefit of a meritocracy?
Good question. I don't believe a pure meritocracy can exist, so it's somewhat of a moot point to try to enumerate its benefits.
I'm quasi-serious about the question, in that, while I don't suggest there is a better system,
There are many better systems. I think the supposed advantage of a meritocracy is that you have only technically competent people, because you only let the best in. Of course that ignores the fact that the best might choose not to join because they don't
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, are these people workers / managers at github or did you just cherry pick some posts by people who happen to use GitHub and welcome gender equality (to whatever scale YOU find repugnant).
Did you ever wake up at night sweating and say: "Damn, I'm on the wrong side of history!"?
Re: (Score:2)
Except, if you read it it isn't a case of a user banned over using an eggplant emoji, it is a troll making no other contribution who was making a bunch of penis jokes.
Are you really claiming not to know what penis jokes are, or if they're OK in a professional discussion?
Also, it is their own project they are managing there. They have every right to ban penis jokes, or people telling them. What is weird about the people insisting that being an asshole should never be punished is that they don't seem to want
Re: (Score:2)
You're doing the exact things you're complaining about others doing. If it is so small... you won't mind the change. Oh, it isn't so small then? Well which is it? At least they're intellectually honest about the change they want. It is unlikely they'll get it, because digital slaves are just electronics, not people. They have very few supporters. ;) But the idea that it is OK to complain about people complaining, but not OK to complain in the first place? That is just pathetic. If they don't like the word a
Re: (Score:3)
Being in an office is often not productive at all...
From my own experience of working remotely vs a city office, most of us get a LOT more done when we're at home for a variety of reasons.
The commute is unpleasant - the office is in a business district and none of us can afford to live nearby, we waste a couple of hours a day minimum travelling on crowded trains which is stressful, uncomfortable and tiring.
There's lots of distractions in the office, when someone comes up and starts talking it derails your c
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but in this story it is the managers that need to be in the office. Which is true. If you're a worker and you often work from home, but you need to see your manager, having that at an office makes them better able to support your activities.
They had executives who simply aren't doing their whole job unless they are in the office, because part of their job involves other employees having access to them.
According to pretty much everybody, they were responding to real problems. Most of the people leaving
Re: (Score:2)
Would that be jeweler's rouge, or morticians rouge? You old rogue, you.
A lot like Facebook in 2009 (Score:4, Insightful)
So... pretty good omen!
Whipslash/BizX (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay attention what happens here with this. This is going to be an important lesson for you to learn from.
This is also an opportunity to capitalize. You see this bad move being made? Do the opposite of it and also take advantage of it. Hire some of those people leaving the company. Turn SourceForge into a better Github. Invest a little money, get a couple of these people, let them work remotely, see what happens.
Re: (Score:2)
SourceForge (Score:5, Funny)
Well, it is a good time for SourceForge to attempt a come-back. Right guys?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, Github had nothing to do with the fall of SourceForge. SourceForge did it to themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
What if it turns out that sourceforge has supervisors? What then?!??!
Impossible to even interview whites?!? - I'm out. (Score:4, Insightful)
That article makes me very uncomfortable with giving github any more of my business.
Sounds like this 'diversity manager' Sanchez has way too much power - someone says it's now almost impossible to even interview white people.
This bothers me for two reasons:
Firstly, I want the platforms I use to be built by the best engineers. Not merely the best engineers whose skin they like the color of.
Secondly, I'm white. I don't want to support a company that will discriminate against me or my kids.
I notice that this burning social conscience is newly discovered - the founders are all white, their VC Marc Andreesen is white. Easy now they're all multimillionaires to wax eloquent about the social need for diversity, but when they were starting out themselves, ethnic diversity apparently wasn't their highest priority. Why ever not, I wonder?
So I'm canceling my account.
Re: (Score:2)
Well...
Where to begin?
Nothing especially wrong with the founders etc all being white and realising that diversity in tech isn't all that great. That's not hypocritical. It's also fine to try to do something for the better when you have the money and power to make a difference. I think that's reasonable, and I think there are biases which need to be overcome. Even in the absence of bigotry the simple fact is people tend to mix with people similar to themselves in many ways. If your team is mostly white guys,
Re: (Score:2)
Secondly, I'm white. I don't want to support a company that will discriminate against me or my kids.
Well, I'm Hispanic (even share their diversity VP's last name) and this is alarming to me as well. I'm not keen on supporting a company that discriminates (even if it would happen to be in my favor) and I definitely don't want to deal with a company that makes things worse for me. Let me explain. I've worked for every single thing I have, every single award and honor I've received, and so on. I resent p
Re: (Score:3)
I tried reading that first sentence like 3 times before I gave up in disgust.
500 employees (Score:2, Insightful)
Tell me again why they need 500 people?
cracking down on remote work?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not the best selling point for at a company where THE MAIN FEATURE is remote distributed development.
Re: (Score:3)
Not the best selling point for at a company where THE MAIN FEATURE is remote distributed development.
No, the main feature is enterprise integration of git with a zillion other tools, and running git as a service with all the hooks and everything exposed.
Git's main feature is remote distributed development. That is not a value-add by github.
And companies buying the paid services don't usually have telecommuting executives, even if they have remote developers. This about getting the leaders into the office where people have access to them. That isn't guaranteed to be bad.
Re: (Score:2)
So you admit the main reason for Git's existence is remote distributed development, but that's somehow not relevant to a company providing an incremental (even if significant) improvement over that main feature? Yeah, gonna have to call bullshit on that...
Lessons unlearned (Score:2)
People with a religious objection to managing encounter problems that require managing. Instead of drawing on secular knowledge, they institute faith-healing which fails. This is taken as proof that their their religious objection is well-founded.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you make your point with less metaphor and more direct statement. I love a good a metaphor, but I missed that.
Re: (Score:2)
No, more like: People with a religious objection to managing encounter problems that require managing. Some of them then resort to secular knowledge of management techniques, which causes a revolt by a faction insisting on faith-healing, which is not granted. Some of them then quit, while others lament that the pay is too good to quit. The quitting of some is seen as by external communities with a shared religion as proof that their concerns were well-founded. After all, if managing isn't evil, why are thes
So they're kicking out the SJW's? (Score:5, Insightful)
That would be a welcome and necessary change.
MBA, scourge of humanly working conditions.... (Score:2)
Hearing what you want to hear (Score:3)
Business Insider didn't just become an authoritative source of news just because it is saying what Slashdot wants to hear.
- "Out with flat org structure based purely on meritocracy" Garbage. That's stuff of fantasies, no large commercial software company has a structure like that. Slashdot makes 'merit based hiring' sound like some kind of panacea - there is no such thing. Maybe GitHub are going the wrong way but this sort of description sounds like it came from someone with an axe to grind. No start up retains that cosy 'smart people you love to work with' feel.
- For the people saying just use a different hosting service, almost every worthwhile open source project is hosted on Github and tracks issues and releases on Github. ALL major companies use Github when they decide to go open source with a project. Guess where Apple put Swift? Microsoft when they wanted to develop an OpenSSH port publicly? Netflix? Yelp? Google's Tensor Flow?
- Alternatives - let's not even mention SourceForge. Bitbucket? Look at how terribly cluttered their UI is compared to Github: https://bitbucket.org/atlassia... [bitbucket.org] And Github has massive first mover advantage here. I can't believe how awful Github's notification system is - I can't set up notifications to just keep track of new releases in a project for example.
- What some here hate is that GitHub is no longer focused on the traditional open source developer audience (if it ever was). 'Enterprise focused company' means what it says on the label. Yes they will have a massive sales force. Yes they are exploiting the brand name to sell an enterprise product that is way more expensive per user than their competitors (Bitbucket and Gitlab). But you know what - better than bundling fucking adware with downloads from their website.
- On the same point, they don't care much for the 'Git isn't server based, why do you need Github to host stuff' audience, or the 'you can take my eMacs from my cold dead hands'. They've put significant effort into their app, available on all platforms (yes an app - for 'developers' don't know how to run git clone or configure SSH keys. Snigger). You know what - they don't care. I heard from a friend recently how working in a major bank, their data science and modelling teams write code and don't use any source control. That's their target audience and that's where their sales people will make them money. I have lost count of the number of perfectly intelligent people I have dealt with who can't get their heads around Git or cannot be bothered to.
- Github doing what's best for Github, and when they do their sales pitch, a couple of slides of how Google hosts their projects on Github rather than the crappy code.google.com does not hurt. And I don't terribly care, compared to the products I have seen sales people sell successfully, Github is like vaccines - it's a good thing despite how it gets sold. A collaboration tool is a pretty damn good pitch.
- On the eMacs thing, Github released an Open Source plugin friendly editor called Atom. And I like it, I like it a lot. Github Page is pretty neat. Git LFS is awesome and works seamlessly for versioning large files and keeping them in the same repo - much better than the half baked git-annex option some projects used. It definitely does not look like they are out of ideas, despite apparently carrying a massive baggage of diversity based incompetent hires if Slashdot is to be believed.
- Look at this blog entry about a doctor who likes to code: https://github.com/blog/2103-m... [github.com]. In commercial terms, you can't fault their choice of going for the much bigger market rather than sticking to trying to sell to 'pure' software / IT firms.
- Look at their blog, the huge list of integrations. They're not asleep at the wheel.
- Another one about their services team:
Here come the MBAs (Score:2)
When they see a tech company run successfully by the founders who barely run the developers who just get things done they know that there is no room for the dead weight of a bunch of MBAs. This is where the slightest hint of VC money or other "professional" money will cause the MBAs to insist on a "professional" management team. This will imm
Re:All I know is that this: (Score:5, Insightful)
Protip: Keep your intellectual property on your own equipment.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The recent culture of running services that contains only private company data on other peoples' networks and servers (e.g., email, source code, team messaging, document storage) really boggles me.
Running these services is not that difficult. With competent sysadmins and network admins, they are rock steady with little maintenance.
Re: (Score:3)
It's about both cost and risk analysis. If you've got a lot of infrastructure, then you've probably already got a team of decent admins. Adding another server has a very small marginal cost. If you haven't, then the cost is basically the cost of hiring a sysadmin. Even the cheapest full-time sysadmin costs a lot more than you can easily spend with GitHub. Alternatively, you get one of your devs to run it. Now you have a service that is only understood well by one person, where installing security upda
Re: (Score:2)
Also, as a matter of accounting, sometimes one type of spending is viewed more favorably than another.
Re: All I know is that this: (Score:2, Insightful)
So what. It's Git. You don't need a centralized server.
Re: All I know is that this: (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, then why github?
That's the rub, you can't say both 'don't knock on github, it's fine' and then 'git is decentralized anyway'. The latter implies that github is superfluous, not that it's ok for it to be down a lot and still used.
Re: All I know is that this: (Score:4, Insightful)
GitHub makes some things easier. If GitHub being down makes some things impossible for you, you're using it wrong.
Re: All I know is that this: (Score:3, Funny)
I hate it when my coworkers just give up instead of
Re: (Score:3)
While git is designed to do that, that's no particular help to those using github for their workflow. The argument is basically 'it's ok if github screws you, just don't use github'.
Either github is important, and it's bad for it to be down. Or it isn't important and shouldn't be defended.
Re: (Score:2)
What I can't figure out is whether their paying customers should continue to pay them. On the one hand they are probably the single most valuable entity on the planet given that their value is completely independent of the state of their service. On the other hand that infinite value can also be had for free.
I had no idea github was at the epi-center center of a
Re: (Score:3)
If you think it has the same value up or down, then you basically say it has no value in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
I just think that people are failing to recognize that github effectively benefits from encouraging traditional centralized version control workflows but using git. They don't emphasize teaching people on how to do offline merges and peer to peer, they encourage every change to be pushed and then a pull request with a handy-dandy 'click to merge' button.
So github shouldn't get a pass for what is possible with git (they didn't make git after all). They just leverage the popularity of git to build what is f
Re: (Score:3)
Yes and no. Yes, you can do it. Praise be to git.
No, because while *git* allows you to clone repos and mail patches, we're talking about *GitHub* working or not. I have GitHub so I don't have to do that stuff.
If I write software or have a service, and it doesn't stay up, then the answer to someone complaining about it isn't , "Go email yourself a patch and be happy that you're using a service based on git so that you don't have to fail when we fail. Thanks! Be sure to rate us really highly and keep the
Re: (Score:3)
Now how do I get a critical fix from a coworker when the server is down.
Set your coworker as your origin and pull.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)