5 ms·

Smaller companies are a much bigger risk as a dependency. Whatever GitHub may do in the future, they are unlikely to disappear in any time frame I care about.

by vlunkr 4y ago

ddevault 4y ago
This is why we take pains to be transparent about things like finances: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-04-08-2021-financial-report/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-04-08-2021-financial-report/ SourceHut is profitable and sustainable, thanks in no small part to the fact that we expect users to pay if they have the means. Small companies providing free services with investor subsidies are much more likely to disappear than a company with a service you're paying for which isn't beholden to any investor demands for infinite growth.
- alberth 4y ago
  > “ we expect users to pay if they have the means” Hi Drew I’d encourage you to start charging then based on your comment above. Because sourcehut pricing page currently says “payment is currently optional”. You’ve been in alpha for a few years now and I’m sure many of us would agree it’s totally appropriate for you to start officially charging based on the quality of your service. https://sourcehut.org/pricing/ https://sourcehut.org/pricing/
  - ddevault 4y ago
    I should have been clearer: the expectation is only in force following the beta. We have a specific set of goals we would like to meet first. In the meantime we expect users to pay but are understanding of those who would prefer not to pay for incomplete software, even if our definition of "complete" exceeds industry standards.
- zxspectrum1982 4y ago
  But is it really profitable and sustainable? IIUC your report, you are paying developers (and yourself) only USD $30,000/year. The typical software developer would make at least three time that much elsewhere. With 3x salary, I'd say SourceHut would no longer be profitable or sustainable. Or am I missing something?
  - ddevault 4y ago
    We pay out base salaries well below market rates, but we supplement them with the FOSS consultancy at each individual employee's discretion. With these sources combined, our total compensation is similar to market rates, and often more -- one of our engineers made over $150,000 last year. We also set aside 3 months base salary for all developers so that even in the worst case scenario of our revenue dropping to zero, they have security. I explained how some of this works the last time we posted a job ad: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2021-08-23-work-at-sourcehut/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2021-08-23-work-at-sourcehut/ The sustainability metrics are based on revenue covering the small base compensation plus operating expenses, as well as having a large enough standing balance to weather any unexpected events. We seek to make models which guarantee the longevity of the platform, and prioritize making sure that our cash flow will always provide for operating expenses. If our revenue dropped to zero today, we would be able to run the platform for several years. Ultimately, everyone involved in SourceHut is there because they believe in free software and believe in the model we've designed to further its cause. Our non-negotiable ethical standards calls for a creative business model to make this thing work. The work experience and impact we offer is something that is, in my opinion, completely unmatched in the industry. It's not for everyone, but we believe in what we're doing, and it's worth taking a gamble on an unproven business model.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
015a 4y ago
Tell that to the people who relied on Google Wave and Wunderlist. Or to the people who said "Linux will go the way of every other hobbyist OS" in 1994. I knew several orgs who were devastated when Atlassian shut down Hipchat. If you want the only guaranteed probability about the future: its that most predictions about the future are wrong. Everything dies eventually; the things you least expect last longer than you expect them to; or sometimes much shorter. I do feel pretty confident that both Github and sr.ht will be operational tomorrow. But, not 100%; and even less than that next Tuesday; and even less by September. Actually, Github has had 12 public incidents since May. So... maybe I shouldn't be so bold with my predictions about Github's operational status. When people say "something is unlikely to happen" what they really mean is: I really hope that thing doesn't happen. Me, personally; I hope both Github and sr.ht continue to see success. As you say; me choosing to pay Github $5/mo won't change anything for the better or worse; but paying that to sr.ht, now that impact is much bigger. If you distil it down to the manifestation of your own hopes: I think the choice of who to support is obvious.
- newuser94303 4y ago
  Google Wave is a bad example. I went to the first hackathon and knew it was doomed. It never had any real traction. Github has massive market share and may get expensive but is unlikely to die.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    Yeah exactly, GitHub would be sold, not turned off. And that would worry people, sure, new owners may not look after it, etc., but there'd be plenty of time and warnings to move off it.
  - snapetom 4y ago
    Google Wave was also a looong time ago. People were still thinking of them as the "do no evil" company.
- EricE 4y ago
  Google and Microsoft are not even remotely similar in culture or product support. Say what you want about Microsoft, they do more than just search or advertising. If anything you are interested in from Google isn't search or advertising related, don't count on it lasting. The only people surprised by Wave and/or Wunderlist getting canned are people who haven't been realistically looking at who Google is and how they operate. The worst IT contracts I have ever had to administer are with Google - they are a complete joke. As for "incidents" - lol - who doesn't have them? What's more important is how does the org in question respond to them. You seriously think sr.ht is going to have the same resources as github/Microsoft? Then again it's a dramatically simpler platform so that's a huge advantage as far as that goes - but just look at this thread; as they add more features the chances for incidents goes up.
josephcsible 4y ago
They're less likely to disappear, sure, but they're way more likely to permaban you and lock you out of your stuff, with no way to get ahold of a human who can undo it for you.

Smaller companies are a much bigger risk as a dependency. Whatever GitHub may do in the future, they are unlikely to disappear in any time frame I care about.

by vlunkr 4y ago

Smaller companies are a much bigger risk as a dependency. Whatever GitHub may do in the future, they are unlikely to disappear in any time frame I care about.

ddevault 4y ago

This is why we take pains to be transparent about things like finances: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-04-08-2021-financial-report/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2022-04-08-2021-financial-report/ SourceHut is profitable and sustainable, thanks in no small part to the fact that we expect users to pay if they have the means. Small companies providing free services with investor subsidies are much more likely to disappear than a company with a service you're paying for which isn't beholden to any investor demands for infinite growth.

alberth 4y ago
> “ we expect users to pay if they have the means” Hi Drew I’d encourage you to start charging then based on your comment above. Because sourcehut pricing page currently says “payment is currently optional”. You’ve been in alpha for a few years now and I’m sure many of us would agree it’s totally appropriate for you to start officially charging based on the quality of your service. https://sourcehut.org/pricing/ https://sourcehut.org/pricing/
- ddevault 4y ago
  I should have been clearer: the expectation is only in force following the beta. We have a specific set of goals we would like to meet first. In the meantime we expect users to pay but are understanding of those who would prefer not to pay for incomplete software, even if our definition of "complete" exceeds industry standards.
zxspectrum1982 4y ago
But is it really profitable and sustainable? IIUC your report, you are paying developers (and yourself) only USD $30,000/year. The typical software developer would make at least three time that much elsewhere. With 3x salary, I'd say SourceHut would no longer be profitable or sustainable. Or am I missing something?
- ddevault 4y ago
  We pay out base salaries well below market rates, but we supplement them with the FOSS consultancy at each individual employee's discretion. With these sources combined, our total compensation is similar to market rates, and often more -- one of our engineers made over $150,000 last year. We also set aside 3 months base salary for all developers so that even in the worst case scenario of our revenue dropping to zero, they have security. I explained how some of this works the last time we posted a job ad: https://sourcehut.org/blog/2021-08-23-work-at-sourcehut/ https://sourcehut.org/blog/2021-08-23-work-at-sourcehut/ The sustainability metrics are based on revenue covering the small base compensation plus operating expenses, as well as having a large enough standing balance to weather any unexpected events. We seek to make models which guarantee the longevity of the platform, and prioritize making sure that our cash flow will always provide for operating expenses. If our revenue dropped to zero today, we would be able to run the platform for several years. Ultimately, everyone involved in SourceHut is there because they believe in free software and believe in the model we've designed to further its cause. Our non-negotiable ethical standards calls for a creative business model to make this thing work. The work experience and impact we offer is something that is, in my opinion, completely unmatched in the industry. It's not for everyone, but we believe in what we're doing, and it's worth taking a gamble on an unproven business model.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

015a 4y ago

Tell that to the people who relied on Google Wave and Wunderlist. Or to the people who said "Linux will go the way of every other hobbyist OS" in 1994. I knew several orgs who were devastated when Atlassian shut down Hipchat. If you want the only guaranteed probability about the future: its that most predictions about the future are wrong. Everything dies eventually; the things you least expect last longer than you expect them to; or sometimes much shorter. I do feel pretty confident that both Github and sr.ht will be operational tomorrow. But, not 100%; and even less than that next Tuesday; and even less by September. Actually, Github has had 12 public incidents since May. So... maybe I shouldn't be so bold with my predictions about Github's operational status. When people say "something is unlikely to happen" what they really mean is: I really hope that thing doesn't happen. Me, personally; I hope both Github and sr.ht continue to see success. As you say; me choosing to pay Github $5/mo won't change anything for the better or worse; but paying that to sr.ht, now that impact is much bigger. If you distil it down to the manifestation of your own hopes: I think the choice of who to support is obvious.

newuser94303 4y ago
Google Wave is a bad example. I went to the first hackathon and knew it was doomed. It never had any real traction. Github has massive market share and may get expensive but is unlikely to die.
- OJFord 4y ago
  Yeah exactly, GitHub would be sold, not turned off. And that would worry people, sure, new owners may not look after it, etc., but there'd be plenty of time and warnings to move off it.
- snapetom 4y ago
  Google Wave was also a looong time ago. People were still thinking of them as the "do no evil" company.
EricE 4y ago
Google and Microsoft are not even remotely similar in culture or product support. Say what you want about Microsoft, they do more than just search or advertising. If anything you are interested in from Google isn't search or advertising related, don't count on it lasting. The only people surprised by Wave and/or Wunderlist getting canned are people who haven't been realistically looking at who Google is and how they operate. The worst IT contracts I have ever had to administer are with Google - they are a complete joke. As for "incidents" - lol - who doesn't have them? What's more important is how does the org in question respond to them. You seriously think sr.ht is going to have the same resources as github/Microsoft? Then again it's a dramatically simpler platform so that's a huge advantage as far as that goes - but just look at this thread; as they add more features the chances for incidents goes up.

josephcsible 4y ago

They're less likely to disappear, sure, but they're way more likely to permaban you and lock you out of your stuff, with no way to get ahold of a human who can undo it for you.