7 ms·

The Most Important Social Network: GitHub

160 points by tuke 14y ago

aggronn 14y ago
What's the point of claiming that GitHub is 'The Most Important Social Network'? How can anyone make that claim? I feel silly thinking in the back of my head "But facebook is approaching 1 billion users, how is GitHub even comparable?". Twitter gets credit for facilitating the arab spring. Facebook has 1000X as many users. Even if we want to be 'work' specific, Yammer is used by over 200k companies for what I assume must be business purposes. This must be hyperbole. That would make sense.
- paulsutter 14y ago
  I think the central point of the story is that github is more like a social network than many of us realize. It's interesting, and could indicate some useful future direction for the service. if the story were titled "Github - a major social network" or "Github - more of a social network than you may think", would that change your opinion of the story? It's surprising to me how much of the criticism here on hacker news ignores the central point of the article, and instead focuses in on individual phrases or semantics. I agree with you that they could have chosen a better title. But I found the article interesting and thought provoking.
  - aggronn 14y ago
    I don't think the criticism you're refering to is frequently directly at the articles; They're reactions to link-bait. Link-bait depends on sensationalism, which I think is opposite the goals of HN, so people don't respond to it well. Nevermind that its inherently misleading, which isn't a way to endear readers. It hurts credibility, etc..
    - paulsutter 14y ago
      Your criticism of the title would be more credible if you also acknowledged the point he was making. As it stands you came across as dismissing the entire article as stupid. And I wonder if the hyperbole in the title is really link bait, or just the opposite, troll bait. I'm not sure the title helped the article's ranking on HN.
      - aggronn 14y ago
        I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on what "troll bait" is in this context. I'm not following.
- tuke 14y ago
  Guess you should write your own blog post. :-)
  - aggronn 14y ago
    "The Most Important Social Network: Real Life"
    - tuke 14y ago
      Good one.
- Argorak 14y ago
  I think his point is that Github is about actual work artifacts, while all other business networks are basically talk about a more or less specific topic - more flexible, but also less focused. Github is much closer to the topic at hand. There is almost no way around attaching comments to a piece of code.
  - jordo37 14y ago
    But Github is about one specific kind of real work. The conversations that happen on Jive and Yammer are also real work, as are the documents made in corporate/public wikis (which are studied extensively) and the work assets made and stored in SharePoint and Google Docs. I don't disagree with the author's premise that GitHub is great and should be studied, but it only covers one small portion of one type of work.
    - Argorak 14y ago
      You missed the tiny little word "artifact". The discussions on Yammer and Jive are work related and are part of the process, but are not rarely directly attached to an artifact. You would talk about the artifact, but its not "there". It is produced somewhere else, in the depths of IT. That doesn't mean that Yammer ain't interesting. SharePoint and Google Docs are not social networks. They are sharing solutions like Dropbox is. Your corporate wiki might qualify, but thats hard to study.
      - jordo37 14y ago
        I did not miss the word, just disagreed with his premise that assets are an important distinction. That being said, wikis are not hard to study, its incredibly common and they are high on the list of the favorite things to discuss among collaboration researchers and have been for years - I've experienced this working with several, but you can also look at research such as http://www.citeulike.org/group/1136/article/114322 http://www.citeulike.org/group/1136/article/114322 to see more.
- dochtman 14y ago
  He uses a metric for importance other than just size. That said, his points that there were 600000 software developers in the US 10 years ago and more than a million GitHub members now, SO there must be significant developer mindshare seems nonsensical unless maybe if you assume GitHub is completely dominated by Americans, which anecdotally doesn't seem the case to me (I spent a few minutes looking for a breakdown of users by country, but didn't see any). Also, confirmation bias.
  - tuke 14y ago
    For sure about the confirmation bias, but I would propose that the post is meant to encourage scholars to come up with their own falsifiables and prove it one way or another. The 600,000 vs 1,000,000 means: A lot of Americans, and the excess are people who are not from the USA or have multiple accounts. But the main point is that in gross numbers many of those 600,000 have accounts.
- eevilspock 14y ago
  Because the thing that overthrows Facebook could very well be collaboratively created on GitHub. The conflict between Facebook's business interests and its user's interests is the biggest painpoint and thus most ripe for disruption.
  - Raphael_Amiard 14y ago
    > Note also that Linux powers Facebook, Google and much of the rest of the web, and Linux itself relies on GitHub for collaborative developement. Now that is not even hyperbole, but just plain incorrect. Linux does have an official git mirror on github. None of the development of Linux is done via GitHub.
    - eevilspock 14y ago
      Thanks. I removed the false statement as it was ancillary anyway. That said, in import it was not false. Linux is collaboratively developed using Git, and as Torvalds himself said when he did temporarily move Linux kernel dev onto GitHub, "But hey, the whole point (well, one of the points) of distributed development is that no single place is really any different from any other, so since I did a github account for my divelog thing, why not see how well it holds up to me just putting my whole kernel repo there too?" I'd not be surprised if he makes a permanent move once GitHub fixes a few things: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-5654674 https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-56546.... On the other hand, he is a known control freak.
  - readme 14y ago
    I hate to say it but Facebook is not going to be overthrown, ever. It's planted very firmly. Backed by mega corps and huge international banks. Facebook is down right scary in the way it has permeated the life of almost every person on the globe. It's monolithic and we have little insight into what they will actually do with all of our data. A little government + facebook cooperation and we'll really be a dystopia. With that said, I don't use Facebook and hope some more people wake up and smell the coffee too. We need a decentralized network, as that is the only way to avoid corruption.
- philwelch 14y ago
  100 people creating value >> 1 billion people wasting time.
munchor 14y ago
I don't really agree with the claim, but I'd love to see Github enter other areas of science like Physics, Maths, Chemistry, etc. Not just programming and computer science. That would be great, Github could work as a center of science all around the world.
- tubbo 14y ago
  It could work as a center of collaboration all around the world. Until [Gobbler](http://gobbler.com http://gobbler.com) came out, I was using Git as a means of version-controlling my music projects (even going so far as to branch and merge the project, my DAW allows me to do this without touching audio files since all changes are saved to a new file). GitHub has shown us that you can create an extremely powerful collaboration tool around Git, all you have to do is design a user interface that's simple, elegant and familiar to those involved. I can't wait to see what other companies do with Git.
- tuke 14y ago
  Obviously with $100M cash, big things will be coming for GitHub. It is hard to imagine that they haven't thought about other collaborative communities.
  - Newky 14y ago
    Will big things be coming? I hope they use that money to grow on the core things they are good at rather than try to capture markets which don't need capturing. They have a unique position in that almost 100% of its users can only say good things about it (bar maybe Torvalds). I want small things from Github, glorious small things.
    - aurelianito 14y ago
      With this level of funding, they can try to achieve both small and big objectives simultaneously.
rokhayakebe 14y ago
I believe there are opportunities for many Githubs For {insert_industry}
arihant 14y ago
If you were a designer, you would claim Dribbble instead of Github. Either way, you would be delusional. Social is just a useful paradigm on the web. More and more products would use it as default. Just like every site now has a search box. Github also has a search box. It is not the most important search engine.
- caseyohara 14y ago
  Google has a social network, and it isn't mentioned in the piece. But I'd bet there's little doubt Google is the most important search engine. You're right about Dribbble, but I'd argue GitHub is for collaboration and Dribbble is for showing off. Certainly people collaborate on Dribbble and people show off on GitHub, but by virtue of how people actually use the platforms I think GitHub is more collaborative and more important (at least in the way the OP posits). Go to http://dribbble.com/ http://dribbble.com/, click the first thumbnail, and count the compliments in the comments.
- Argorak 14y ago
  It could be a very important special search engine, like Google Scholar. Sadly, search on Github is also a topic to rant about.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
DivisibleByZero 14y ago
Reading this post I get a nice feeling of joy for belonging to the software community. Being so entrenched in the software world it becomes easy to gloss over these details. The outside perspective of this article really shines a light on how well the software community collaborates and shares. I can't think of a single community that even comes close to the level of collaboration we have in software.
- jmduke 14y ago
  Honestly, I had the opposite response. I think the claim that Github is the most important social network is willfully ignorant of the role Facebook/Twitter plays in every industry beyond software development -- or, more accurately, the role Github doesn't play.
  - Maascamp 14y ago
    I agree. One of my good friends is a realtor. Facebook changed the way she does business. It is the source of 80+ percent of her leads and is, quite frankly, the MOST important social network to her. Github may be the most important social network for a certain class of open source developer, but the author's attempt to extend its importance to demographics beyond this group makes the author sounds as if they're just trying to stake a claim as an early member of a new "cool" social network.
incongruity 14y ago
I would submit that the term "social network" has lost almost all distinctive value. Github isn't a social network in the way that traditional online social networks have been viewed – it isn't just about "connecting" and communicating the way that friendster, facebook and twitter all are. Instead, it's an online code repository that has social features – in other words, it's the next step in making our online selves a more effective extension of our off-line selves, doing work, building things, but doing it in the context of a social group – just like we do in the off-line world, more often than not. This is an example of a niche concept becoming widespread enough that it almost becomes table stakes rather than a notable feature. That's still pretty cool – but again, I think it means that the term "social network" is losing its distinctiveness.
- law 14y ago
  > That's still pretty cool – but again, I think it means that the term "social network" is losing its distinctiveness. Good. The term should lose its distinctiveness. Currently, ``social'' closely relates to friendliness or geniality, but its Lockean definition pertains to ``society as a natural condition of human life.'' Although ``societal networking'' may be the more appropriate term in certain contexts (e.g., those outside the scope of friendly or genial conversation), ``social networking'' nevertheless remains correct. The exceptionally broad definition of the word ``social'' effectively portends ambiguity when discussing social networking, so a presumption of distinctiveness isn't warranted.
elssar 14y ago
Well it all comes down to what metrics you use to decide the importance of social networks, doesn't it. If you're judging by the ability to interact with your real life contacts online then facebook is probably the best social network(gah!) If you think that meeting like minded people & having awesome interactions with them is more important, then maybe Google+ is the most important social network. If you agree with Jane McGonigal that games can help make the world a better place, then WoW is probably the most important social network. But if you think that collaboration on software is more important(and facebook & WoW are softwares), then GitHub is probably the most important social network. It all depends on what you rate higher. And putting myself in the shoes of the writer, I think it's the end product that comes out of social networks, is the metric he's pointing to. While other social networks directly affect the lives of more people, much much more than GitHub can ever hope to, the products coming out of GitHub are, or would soon affect more people than any single social network could hope to do. Someone out there is building the next facebook, the next WoW, the next Linux, or maybe the next Google and it's likely that GitHub will play a part in it. Keeping that in mind, I'd say that yes, GitHub is maybe the most important social network on the internet.
- qznc 14y ago
  To interact with my real life contacts online, the best social network is email. ;) Seriously, Github already plays a part in Facebook [0], WoW [1], Linux [2], and Google [3]. No need to wait for "the next". However, its part is quite indirect and it could easily be replaced in all four examples. The fact that it is based on git makes it inherently replaceable. This is a good thing and probably a big reason for its adoption. If github is down, which networking connections break? [0] https://github.com/facebook https://github.com/facebook [1] https://github.com/Blizzard/api-wow-docs https://github.com/Blizzard/api-wow-docs [2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux https://github.com/torvalds/linux [3] https://github.com/google https://github.com/google
samstave 14y ago
The most important social network: GitHub ... (as long as you're a developer) Clearly my mom has no reason to know github even exists.
- mistercow 14y ago
  >Clearly my mom has no reason to know github even exists. Your mom probably also has no reason to know that the Haber—Bosch Process exists, but it's still one of the most important scientific developments of last few centuries, even to her.
  - samstave 14y ago
    You're comparing github to the Haber-Bosch process??! While I think that is ridiculous, your claim appears to imply that even though my mom is not aware of github, its existance is as important that a major part of our civilization's sustainability relies on it? No, thats just plain stupid. Anyway - my original comment was that github is only valuable as "the most important social network" to a very narrow portion of the populous.
    - dinkumthinkum 14y ago
      The funny part about this is that most software that the generally public deals with regularly is not on Github anyway and even the ones that are existed just fine for many years before Github so it's not as if there is some contingenct on Github or something.
    - mistercow 14y ago
      >You're comparing github to the Haber-Bosch process??! No, don't be dense. The point of the analogy is that something's importance to a person is independent of that person's knowledge of that thing.
  - dinkumthinkum 14y ago
    Oh that's just ridiculous. I mean there's a point of "jumping the shark" here even though I hate that phrase. I mean come on, it's not that great. It's arguable that this whole attitude about Github is massively pretentious and overblown. I don't think we can compare Github to the development of agriculture, pasteurization, classical mechanics, etc.
BasDirks 14y ago
"Facebook! Twitter! LinkedIn! VK! Renren! These are among the most famous and largest social networking platforms in the world. But are they important? Of course they are. They’ve changed the way humans interact. But let me challenge you and ask: Have they changed the way we work and think? I do think they have, to some extent." "To some extent" is comically naive. These platforms have played a considerable part in the youth of internet/earth. Perhaps the author suggests that github is part of the next phase, which is more credible.
nerdfiles 14y ago
I believe the thrust here is that Source Code Management has given us a template for Source Content Management.
cletus 14y ago
To paraphrase Leonard Nimoy from the Simpsons [1]: The following article is true and by "true" I mean "false". It's all lies but they're entertaining lies and in the end isn't that the real truth? The answer is "no". We geeks seem to often be susceptible to hype and hyperbole. Someone is really in love with Github and thinks it's the greatest thing ever and it's going to change the world. It's easy to get caught up in your own excitement. I get it. That's fine. But I have to admit to having some Github fatigue. We've gone through a spate in the last year of "Github is the new resume", "Github will change engineer recruiting" and now "Github is the most important social network ever". In many cases I don't believe the author is being deliberately "linkbaity" but that's ultimately what it is. Part of the problem too is that you get a certain about of "bubble thinking" in tech circles. You see this when VCs get excited about Quora thinking it's going to be the Next Big Thing [tm] because "everyone" is using it (meaning "lots of other people in the Valley"). That's what I mean by "bubble". I play boardgames a lot and it's much like "groupthink" there (an isolated group of players will evolve a play style and view on strategy very different from other such groups). In all of the above cases the cure is just to get out of the bubble and expose yourself to different influences and views because the end of the road for this kind of thinking is simply stagnation and becoming out of touch. Github is great. Their engineers are great. Source control is important. Some will be able to use it to demonstrate their work ([2] really resonates with me). All of this is true but let's not go overboard. [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701263/quotes?qt=qt0332688 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701263/quotes?qt=qt0332688 [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4244420 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4244420
- dsirijus 14y ago
  Misguided title as it may be, article (successfully) really suggests that GitHub is ignored in studies of social networks and group collaboration, and it shouldn't be, given its productive capacity, as opposed to time-wasting alternatives. Many sociological and even political models could reference it in their development and study. Love the Nimoy quote. Will be reused.
- benihana 14y ago
  Related TED talk: Beware online filter bubbles. http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu...
unreal37 14y ago
I would argue that 10 million+ people have gotten jobs through LinkedIn [1]. And getting a job equates to at least $40,000 a year in income, and a direct improvement to people's lives. The existence of LinkedIn has been a part of ~$400 billion a year to the world's economy. I think Github is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of that in terms of its real-world effect on peoples lives. [1] LinkedIn has 161 million user accounts, and assuming 5% of them have gotten jobs through the services which could be low. Around 4 billion candidate searches a month are done there. http://press.linkedin.com/about http://press.linkedin.com/about
- simonbrown 14y ago
  That assumes LinkedIn helps companies/workers fill positions/get jobs 1 year sooner than they otherwise would have (if the pay stays the same).
mcbaby 14y ago
While I'm sure Andreessen Horowitz feels some tech-world pride in this investment, they are still a venture capital firm. This article is a bit too sensational, self-loving to really portray the importance of the investment. I think TechCrunch nailed it in their article today, where they wrote, "Think of it as a filing system for every draft of a document." Github right now is limited to code-sharing. But it's potential is so incredibly huge. Like the article stated, imagine applying it to PSDs, Word Docs, Excel sheets, any document imaginable. IMO that would be THE killer enterprise prodcut.
- pmarca 14y ago
  We didn't write it.
- theorique 14y ago
  It's not really limited to code sharing - any version of a text file can be versioned in the same way (e.g. the raw LaTeX code of revisions of a book or other document). Granted, this is still largely of interest to STEM geeks, so extending its capabilities to binary format versioning might lead in very interesting directions, as you point out.
azinman2 14y ago
The article focuses on blending communication & code. While it's great to build tools that blend them, we can't pretend that other channels and mechanisms won't be used. Hopefully github will see the importance of doing that rather than forcing everyone to live inside a github world. Back in 2004 I did a class project called Open Sources [1] at MIT that looked at blending public mailing lists with public CVS archives (no github at the time). Years later I see some of these ideas becoming more popular in coding tools -- my take is that visualization of group history and individual contribution will become critical as catalysts of open-based works. These top-down summaries provide a map & narration rather than autistic reverse chronological fine-grain lists, as well as giving a broader overview as to who an individual is and what they have achieved. [1]: http://smg.media.mit.edu/projects/OpenSources http://smg.media.mit.edu/projects/OpenSources
cjdrake 14y ago
If Github can figure out how to serve customers who want to do version control on cat pictures, then I think the link title would have some merit.
SethMurphy 14y ago
I think the term "social" is being overused here in the context of a startup, and was probably stuck in the tagline like many buzzwords, with an eye on marketing. The whole internet is social to a point. I think the term collaborative is more apt. The words that tended to jump out to me in the article were collaborative and commentary. He says "GitHub puts the social exchange at the very center", and I disagree. At the center with my view I see a strong tool to manage code that enables great collaboration. When you see a getting started tutorial with Github, the communication aspects are rarely mentioned. In the few projects I have seen getting popular there are usually external forces at work (i.e. Hacker News, Blogs, Large Corporate Support). It may be nice if Github was better at marketing your project. I suspect they may have to be better at it now and the product will undergo many changes in the coming year. That substantial portion of that 100m will likely all go to marketing efforts, not more engineers, which I think is a good thing.

160 points by tuke 14y ago

What's the point of claiming that GitHub is 'The Most Important Social Network'? How can anyone make that claim? I feel silly thinking in the back of my head "But facebook is approaching 1 billion users, how is GitHub even comparable?". Twitter gets credit for facilitating the arab spring. Facebook has 1000X as many users. Even if we want to be 'work' specific, Yammer is used by over 200k companies for what I assume must be business purposes. This must be hyperbole. That would make sense.

paulsutter 14y ago
I think the central point of the story is that github is more like a social network than many of us realize. It's interesting, and could indicate some useful future direction for the service. if the story were titled "Github - a major social network" or "Github - more of a social network than you may think", would that change your opinion of the story? It's surprising to me how much of the criticism here on hacker news ignores the central point of the article, and instead focuses in on individual phrases or semantics. I agree with you that they could have chosen a better title. But I found the article interesting and thought provoking.
- aggronn 14y ago
  I don't think the criticism you're refering to is frequently directly at the articles; They're reactions to link-bait. Link-bait depends on sensationalism, which I think is opposite the goals of HN, so people don't respond to it well. Nevermind that its inherently misleading, which isn't a way to endear readers. It hurts credibility, etc..
  - paulsutter 14y ago
    Your criticism of the title would be more credible if you also acknowledged the point he was making. As it stands you came across as dismissing the entire article as stupid. And I wonder if the hyperbole in the title is really link bait, or just the opposite, troll bait. I'm not sure the title helped the article's ranking on HN.
    - aggronn 14y ago
      I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on what "troll bait" is in this context. I'm not following.
tuke 14y ago
Guess you should write your own blog post. :-)
- aggronn 14y ago
  "The Most Important Social Network: Real Life"
  - tuke 14y ago
    Good one.
Argorak 14y ago
I think his point is that Github is about actual work artifacts, while all other business networks are basically talk about a more or less specific topic - more flexible, but also less focused. Github is much closer to the topic at hand. There is almost no way around attaching comments to a piece of code.
- jordo37 14y ago
  But Github is about one specific kind of real work. The conversations that happen on Jive and Yammer are also real work, as are the documents made in corporate/public wikis (which are studied extensively) and the work assets made and stored in SharePoint and Google Docs. I don't disagree with the author's premise that GitHub is great and should be studied, but it only covers one small portion of one type of work.
  - Argorak 14y ago
    You missed the tiny little word "artifact". The discussions on Yammer and Jive are work related and are part of the process, but are not rarely directly attached to an artifact. You would talk about the artifact, but its not "there". It is produced somewhere else, in the depths of IT. That doesn't mean that Yammer ain't interesting. SharePoint and Google Docs are not social networks. They are sharing solutions like Dropbox is. Your corporate wiki might qualify, but thats hard to study.
    - jordo37 14y ago
      I did not miss the word, just disagreed with his premise that assets are an important distinction. That being said, wikis are not hard to study, its incredibly common and they are high on the list of the favorite things to discuss among collaboration researchers and have been for years - I've experienced this working with several, but you can also look at research such as http://www.citeulike.org/group/1136/article/114322 http://www.citeulike.org/group/1136/article/114322 to see more.
dochtman 14y ago
He uses a metric for importance other than just size. That said, his points that there were 600000 software developers in the US 10 years ago and more than a million GitHub members now, SO there must be significant developer mindshare seems nonsensical unless maybe if you assume GitHub is completely dominated by Americans, which anecdotally doesn't seem the case to me (I spent a few minutes looking for a breakdown of users by country, but didn't see any). Also, confirmation bias.
- tuke 14y ago
  For sure about the confirmation bias, but I would propose that the post is meant to encourage scholars to come up with their own falsifiables and prove it one way or another. The 600,000 vs 1,000,000 means: A lot of Americans, and the excess are people who are not from the USA or have multiple accounts. But the main point is that in gross numbers many of those 600,000 have accounts.
eevilspock 14y ago
Because the thing that overthrows Facebook could very well be collaboratively created on GitHub. The conflict between Facebook's business interests and its user's interests is the biggest painpoint and thus most ripe for disruption.
- Raphael_Amiard 14y ago
  > Note also that Linux powers Facebook, Google and much of the rest of the web, and Linux itself relies on GitHub for collaborative developement. Now that is not even hyperbole, but just plain incorrect. Linux does have an official git mirror on github. None of the development of Linux is done via GitHub.
  - eevilspock 14y ago
    Thanks. I removed the false statement as it was ancillary anyway. That said, in import it was not false. Linux is collaboratively developed using Git, and as Torvalds himself said when he did temporarily move Linux kernel dev onto GitHub, "But hey, the whole point (well, one of the points) of distributed development is that no single place is really any different from any other, so since I did a github account for my divelog thing, why not see how well it holds up to me just putting my whole kernel repo there too?" I'd not be surprised if he makes a permanent move once GitHub fixes a few things: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-5654674 https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/17#issuecomment-56546.... On the other hand, he is a known control freak.
- readme 14y ago
  I hate to say it but Facebook is not going to be overthrown, ever. It's planted very firmly. Backed by mega corps and huge international banks. Facebook is down right scary in the way it has permeated the life of almost every person on the globe. It's monolithic and we have little insight into what they will actually do with all of our data. A little government + facebook cooperation and we'll really be a dystopia. With that said, I don't use Facebook and hope some more people wake up and smell the coffee too. We need a decentralized network, as that is the only way to avoid corruption.
philwelch 14y ago
100 people creating value >> 1 billion people wasting time.

munchor 14y ago

I don't really agree with the claim, but I'd love to see Github enter other areas of science like Physics, Maths, Chemistry, etc. Not just programming and computer science. That would be great, Github could work as a center of science all around the world.

tubbo 14y ago
It could work as a center of collaboration all around the world. Until [Gobbler](http://gobbler.com http://gobbler.com) came out, I was using Git as a means of version-controlling my music projects (even going so far as to branch and merge the project, my DAW allows me to do this without touching audio files since all changes are saved to a new file). GitHub has shown us that you can create an extremely powerful collaboration tool around Git, all you have to do is design a user interface that's simple, elegant and familiar to those involved. I can't wait to see what other companies do with Git.
tuke 14y ago
Obviously with $100M cash, big things will be coming for GitHub. It is hard to imagine that they haven't thought about other collaborative communities.
- Newky 14y ago
  Will big things be coming? I hope they use that money to grow on the core things they are good at rather than try to capture markets which don't need capturing. They have a unique position in that almost 100% of its users can only say good things about it (bar maybe Torvalds). I want small things from Github, glorious small things.
  - aurelianito 14y ago
    With this level of funding, they can try to achieve both small and big objectives simultaneously.

rokhayakebe 14y ago

I believe there are opportunities for many Githubs For {insert_industry}

arihant 14y ago

If you were a designer, you would claim Dribbble instead of Github. Either way, you would be delusional. Social is just a useful paradigm on the web. More and more products would use it as default. Just like every site now has a search box. Github also has a search box. It is not the most important search engine.

caseyohara 14y ago
Google has a social network, and it isn't mentioned in the piece. But I'd bet there's little doubt Google is the most important search engine. You're right about Dribbble, but I'd argue GitHub is for collaboration and Dribbble is for showing off. Certainly people collaborate on Dribbble and people show off on GitHub, but by virtue of how people actually use the platforms I think GitHub is more collaborative and more important (at least in the way the OP posits). Go to http://dribbble.com/ http://dribbble.com/, click the first thumbnail, and count the compliments in the comments.
Argorak 14y ago
It could be a very important special search engine, like Google Scholar. Sadly, search on Github is also a topic to rant about.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

DivisibleByZero 14y ago

Reading this post I get a nice feeling of joy for belonging to the software community. Being so entrenched in the software world it becomes easy to gloss over these details. The outside perspective of this article really shines a light on how well the software community collaborates and shares. I can't think of a single community that even comes close to the level of collaboration we have in software.

jmduke 14y ago
Honestly, I had the opposite response. I think the claim that Github is the most important social network is willfully ignorant of the role Facebook/Twitter plays in every industry beyond software development -- or, more accurately, the role Github doesn't play.
- Maascamp 14y ago
  I agree. One of my good friends is a realtor. Facebook changed the way she does business. It is the source of 80+ percent of her leads and is, quite frankly, the MOST important social network to her. Github may be the most important social network for a certain class of open source developer, but the author's attempt to extend its importance to demographics beyond this group makes the author sounds as if they're just trying to stake a claim as an early member of a new "cool" social network.

incongruity 14y ago

I would submit that the term "social network" has lost almost all distinctive value. Github isn't a social network in the way that traditional online social networks have been viewed – it isn't just about "connecting" and communicating the way that friendster, facebook and twitter all are. Instead, it's an online code repository that has social features – in other words, it's the next step in making our online selves a more effective extension of our off-line selves, doing work, building things, but doing it in the context of a social group – just like we do in the off-line world, more often than not. This is an example of a niche concept becoming widespread enough that it almost becomes table stakes rather than a notable feature. That's still pretty cool – but again, I think it means that the term "social network" is losing its distinctiveness.

law 14y ago
> That's still pretty cool – but again, I think it means that the term "social network" is losing its distinctiveness. Good. The term should lose its distinctiveness. Currently, ``social'' closely relates to friendliness or geniality, but its Lockean definition pertains to ``society as a natural condition of human life.'' Although ``societal networking'' may be the more appropriate term in certain contexts (e.g., those outside the scope of friendly or genial conversation), ``social networking'' nevertheless remains correct. The exceptionally broad definition of the word ``social'' effectively portends ambiguity when discussing social networking, so a presumption of distinctiveness isn't warranted.

elssar 14y ago

Well it all comes down to what metrics you use to decide the importance of social networks, doesn't it. If you're judging by the ability to interact with your real life contacts online then facebook is probably the best social network(gah!) If you think that meeting like minded people & having awesome interactions with them is more important, then maybe Google+ is the most important social network. If you agree with Jane McGonigal that games can help make the world a better place, then WoW is probably the most important social network. But if you think that collaboration on software is more important(and facebook & WoW are softwares), then GitHub is probably the most important social network. It all depends on what you rate higher. And putting myself in the shoes of the writer, I think it's the end product that comes out of social networks, is the metric he's pointing to. While other social networks directly affect the lives of more people, much much more than GitHub can ever hope to, the products coming out of GitHub are, or would soon affect more people than any single social network could hope to do. Someone out there is building the next facebook, the next WoW, the next Linux, or maybe the next Google and it's likely that GitHub will play a part in it. Keeping that in mind, I'd say that yes, GitHub is maybe the most important social network on the internet.

qznc 14y ago
To interact with my real life contacts online, the best social network is email. ;) Seriously, Github already plays a part in Facebook [0], WoW [1], Linux [2], and Google [3]. No need to wait for "the next". However, its part is quite indirect and it could easily be replaced in all four examples. The fact that it is based on git makes it inherently replaceable. This is a good thing and probably a big reason for its adoption. If github is down, which networking connections break? [0] https://github.com/facebook https://github.com/facebook [1] https://github.com/Blizzard/api-wow-docs https://github.com/Blizzard/api-wow-docs [2] https://github.com/torvalds/linux https://github.com/torvalds/linux [3] https://github.com/google https://github.com/google

samstave 14y ago

The most important social network: GitHub ... (as long as you're a developer) Clearly my mom has no reason to know github even exists.

mistercow 14y ago
>Clearly my mom has no reason to know github even exists. Your mom probably also has no reason to know that the Haber—Bosch Process exists, but it's still one of the most important scientific developments of last few centuries, even to her.
- samstave 14y ago
  You're comparing github to the Haber-Bosch process??! While I think that is ridiculous, your claim appears to imply that even though my mom is not aware of github, its existance is as important that a major part of our civilization's sustainability relies on it? No, thats just plain stupid. Anyway - my original comment was that github is only valuable as "the most important social network" to a very narrow portion of the populous.
  - dinkumthinkum 14y ago
    The funny part about this is that most software that the generally public deals with regularly is not on Github anyway and even the ones that are existed just fine for many years before Github so it's not as if there is some contingenct on Github or something.
  - mistercow 14y ago
    >You're comparing github to the Haber-Bosch process??! No, don't be dense. The point of the analogy is that something's importance to a person is independent of that person's knowledge of that thing.
- dinkumthinkum 14y ago
  Oh that's just ridiculous. I mean there's a point of "jumping the shark" here even though I hate that phrase. I mean come on, it's not that great. It's arguable that this whole attitude about Github is massively pretentious and overblown. I don't think we can compare Github to the development of agriculture, pasteurization, classical mechanics, etc.

BasDirks 14y ago

"Facebook! Twitter! LinkedIn! VK! Renren! These are among the most famous and largest social networking platforms in the world. But are they important? Of course they are. They’ve changed the way humans interact. But let me challenge you and ask: Have they changed the way we work and think? I do think they have, to some extent." "To some extent" is comically naive. These platforms have played a considerable part in the youth of internet/earth. Perhaps the author suggests that github is part of the next phase, which is more credible.

nerdfiles 14y ago

I believe the thrust here is that Source Code Management has given us a template for Source Content Management.

cletus 14y ago

To paraphrase Leonard Nimoy from the Simpsons [1]: The following article is true and by "true" I mean "false". It's all lies but they're entertaining lies and in the end isn't that the real truth? The answer is "no". We geeks seem to often be susceptible to hype and hyperbole. Someone is really in love with Github and thinks it's the greatest thing ever and it's going to change the world. It's easy to get caught up in your own excitement. I get it. That's fine. But I have to admit to having some Github fatigue. We've gone through a spate in the last year of "Github is the new resume", "Github will change engineer recruiting" and now "Github is the most important social network ever". In many cases I don't believe the author is being deliberately "linkbaity" but that's ultimately what it is. Part of the problem too is that you get a certain about of "bubble thinking" in tech circles. You see this when VCs get excited about Quora thinking it's going to be the Next Big Thing [tm] because "everyone" is using it (meaning "lots of other people in the Valley"). That's what I mean by "bubble". I play boardgames a lot and it's much like "groupthink" there (an isolated group of players will evolve a play style and view on strategy very different from other such groups). In all of the above cases the cure is just to get out of the bubble and expose yourself to different influences and views because the end of the road for this kind of thinking is simply stagnation and becoming out of touch. Github is great. Their engineers are great. Source control is important. Some will be able to use it to demonstrate their work ([2] really resonates with me). All of this is true but let's not go overboard. [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701263/quotes?qt=qt0332688 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701263/quotes?qt=qt0332688 [2]: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4244420 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4244420

dsirijus 14y ago
Misguided title as it may be, article (successfully) really suggests that GitHub is ignored in studies of social networks and group collaboration, and it shouldn't be, given its productive capacity, as opposed to time-wasting alternatives. Many sociological and even political models could reference it in their development and study. Love the Nimoy quote. Will be reused.
benihana 14y ago
Related TED talk: Beware online filter bubbles. http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bubbles.html http://www.ted.com/talks/eli_pariser_beware_online_filter_bu...

unreal37 14y ago

I would argue that 10 million+ people have gotten jobs through LinkedIn [1]. And getting a job equates to at least $40,000 a year in income, and a direct improvement to people's lives. The existence of LinkedIn has been a part of ~$400 billion a year to the world's economy. I think Github is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of that in terms of its real-world effect on peoples lives. [1] LinkedIn has 161 million user accounts, and assuming 5% of them have gotten jobs through the services which could be low. Around 4 billion candidate searches a month are done there. http://press.linkedin.com/about http://press.linkedin.com/about

simonbrown 14y ago
That assumes LinkedIn helps companies/workers fill positions/get jobs 1 year sooner than they otherwise would have (if the pay stays the same).

mcbaby 14y ago

While I'm sure Andreessen Horowitz feels some tech-world pride in this investment, they are still a venture capital firm. This article is a bit too sensational, self-loving to really portray the importance of the investment. I think TechCrunch nailed it in their article today, where they wrote, "Think of it as a filing system for every draft of a document." Github right now is limited to code-sharing. But it's potential is so incredibly huge. Like the article stated, imagine applying it to PSDs, Word Docs, Excel sheets, any document imaginable. IMO that would be THE killer enterprise prodcut.

pmarca 14y ago
We didn't write it.
theorique 14y ago
It's not really limited to code sharing - any version of a text file can be versioned in the same way (e.g. the raw LaTeX code of revisions of a book or other document). Granted, this is still largely of interest to STEM geeks, so extending its capabilities to binary format versioning might lead in very interesting directions, as you point out.

azinman2 14y ago

The article focuses on blending communication & code. While it's great to build tools that blend them, we can't pretend that other channels and mechanisms won't be used. Hopefully github will see the importance of doing that rather than forcing everyone to live inside a github world. Back in 2004 I did a class project called Open Sources [1] at MIT that looked at blending public mailing lists with public CVS archives (no github at the time). Years later I see some of these ideas becoming more popular in coding tools -- my take is that visualization of group history and individual contribution will become critical as catalysts of open-based works. These top-down summaries provide a map & narration rather than autistic reverse chronological fine-grain lists, as well as giving a broader overview as to who an individual is and what they have achieved. [1]: http://smg.media.mit.edu/projects/OpenSources http://smg.media.mit.edu/projects/OpenSources

cjdrake 14y ago

If Github can figure out how to serve customers who want to do version control on cat pictures, then I think the link title would have some merit.

SethMurphy 14y ago

I think the term "social" is being overused here in the context of a startup, and was probably stuck in the tagline like many buzzwords, with an eye on marketing. The whole internet is social to a point. I think the term collaborative is more apt. The words that tended to jump out to me in the article were collaborative and commentary. He says "GitHub puts the social exchange at the very center", and I disagree. At the center with my view I see a strong tool to manage code that enables great collaboration. When you see a getting started tutorial with Github, the communication aspects are rarely mentioned. In the few projects I have seen getting popular there are usually external forces at work (i.e. Hacker News, Blogs, Large Corporate Support). It may be nice if Github was better at marketing your project. I suspect they may have to be better at it now and the product will undergo many changes in the coming year. That substantial portion of that 100m will likely all go to marketing efforts, not more engineers, which I think is a good thing.