7 ms·
Only on HN / in San Francisco would the federal government (if I understand you correctly) be preferable to a technology company which has been a key player in
by erulabs 8y ago
Only on HN / in San Francisco would the federal government (if I understand you correctly) be preferable to a technology company which has been a key player in the PC and internet marketplace for decades. I’m not trying to lionize M$, but come on - a Public Utility? As if the government doesn’t already burn enough cash....
- jacquesm 8y ago> if I understand you correctly You don't. We are the public. If GitHub did an annual funding drive a-la wikipedia it would definitely keep them afloat. A-propos, would you be OK with Microsoft buying Wikipedia? Archive.org?
- erulabs 8y agoHaving been to the GitHub offices and having dined at their in-office restaurant, and having gotten drunk at their free bar - the answer is an asbsolute no regarding me funding then via donation. I’ll continue to fund the Linux foundation, and continue to run my own git server, and continue to enjoy the fruits of VC funding, but donations for GitHub? Insanity. I would for sure be happier if they reached profitability on their own, but that was pretty clearly not in the cards. As for Wikipedia, I feel similarly, except Wikimedia runs a fairly tight ship, and lacking a corporate product offering (or market) means I’m much more happy to donate. They don’t run in the deep red intentionally, which is the key difference. Also, GitHub is extremely easily replaceable (and we -need- diversity in code hosting for FOSS), whereas Wikipedia is not quite so replaceable, and diversity in open encyclopedia platforms doesn’t help anyone...
- scarface74 8y agoInvestors would never accept that as an exit strategy.
- ksk 8y agoThe owners of GitHub want their money back. Just keeping it afloat doesn't achieve that.