> Github is running on $350m of VC funding. Gitlab is also running on a bunch of VC money. > In response to my question 'can you call a 10yo company that stil

> Github is running on $350m of VC funding. Gitlab is also running on a bunch of VC money. > In response to my question 'can you call a 10yo company that still isn't profitable, a "business"?' Gitlab also likely runs at a loss. Gitlab has certainly never claimed to be profitable and some estimates are that as few as .1% of their customers pay for Gitlab. > I understand that you're claiming gitlab is salting the earth, but still don't understand why / how. It's pretty clear to me at least that neither Github nor Gitlab have sustainable business models. The OSS community is crazy to think that either business will continue to subsidize OSS development while losing millions of dollars a year. All of the anger against Github and the new "faith" in Gitlab is pure delusion. Both these companies subsidize OSS development while losing millions of dollars. This will go on until it stops. It certainly can't go on forever. Personally I suspect the absolutely best thing to happen to both Github and Gitlab would be being bought out by real companies that heavily depend upon OSS and, you know, actually make money. It came up before and now the chatter has started up again around Gitlab. I think it still makes a lot of sense for AWS to purchase Gitlab. There's a fundamental strategy alignment there (both Gitlab and Amazon aim to be a "one stop shop"), Gitlab offers the potential to lure a bunch of developers into the AWS platform with a free offering and, ultimately, Gitlab offers the same computational economics as other Amazon products because it is just another hosted product that requires a database. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see such a transaction in as little as 2-3 years.