I spent several years working for a competitor of Ticketmaster. The industry is really difficult to break into.
First, there's the chicken and egg problem of content (events) and consumers. One big part of the sales process is a venue or promoter understanding how your platform will support their sales and marketing processes. If you already have consumers with an app and push notifications, it's an easy sell.
Another issue is cash flow. Deals often depends on what advance you're willing to pay, and it's not uncommon for very large venues to get signed at a loss just for the content. You need the cash to compete, and the big boys will happily take a hit on the big venues to hold onto them. The actual take per ticket is quite a low margin, and if a venue performs worse than you'd hoped you can easily end up making a lot less than planned.
Then you've got all the usual RFP noise around feature offerings. Plus regulation in different countries (looking at you, Italy).
You need investors to fund your sales process, and your development all at very low margins. You also need all the industry connections to build an enterprise sales pipeline and secure business. All of that is to say it's a difficult industry to get any sort of a foot hold in, let alone grow enough to be a serious contender.
The company I worked at ended up doing several rounds of layoffs followed by a very poor sale with no consideration to staff options. It's limping on as it slowly gets absorbed into the company who bought them who are also in the ticketing and event space.
I don't think we're anywhere close to the downfall of GitHub. It'll be a very slow decay.
The fact is, lots of people are very happy using AI tools, and most of those hook straight into GitHub. If AI is driving all this new code, it's only going to make moving away from GitHub more painful.
Businesses I've spoken to hate the idea of moving their code forge. Migrations like that suck and they're expensive. There isn't a meaningful differentiator between the other managed options, so the goal would just be to stand still. Unless GitHub's stability spirals fast I don't see a big wave of businesses leaving.
I say all this as someone who's been moving their code over to their own Forgejo instance. I'm all for more competition and fragmentation in this area, I just don't think it's happening soon.
> Businesses I've spoken to hate the idea of moving their code forge. Migrations like that suck and they're expensive. There isn't a meaningful differentiator between the other managed options, so the goal would just be to stand still. Unless GitHub's stability spirals fast I don't see a big wave of businesses leaving.
Yep, been through a somewhat pointless GitHub to GitLab migration because, at the time, GitLab was cheaper. Now GitHub is cheaper again and the migration was a big annoying and expensive project.
I’m prob not the “average” user in this context (meaning that I am not a SWE or professional developer, but rather a code-curious sysadmin and consultant with too many hobbies), and I consistently use GitHub Copilot to write and push code to a self-hosted Forgejo…unless it’s a productive fork for contributing, or simply something I don’t want to take up space on my own server, anyway. I agree it’s likely to be a slow decay. GitHub is problematic, but it doesn’t summon the sort of white-hot resentment that pushed people to abandon other platforms en masse.
I am concerned that it will be much more difficult to discover FOSS projects with whatever the new regimes are, similar to how Discord has walled off a great deal of the discussion forums and collaborative groups.
> and most of those hook straight into GitHub. If AI is driving all this new code, it's only going to make moving away from GitHub more painful.
Anecdotal, but we've had success with gitea and having agents use "tea" (gh cli alternative) as a skill. If the cli tool you're asking it to use is similar enough it will use it instead of gh without any (major) issues.
I think this is true of github as a forge but it faces the threat of unbundling. Off the top of my head
- Code repository
- Project wiki
- Project roadmap/planning
- Static site hosting
- Issue tracking
- Internal and external contributions (PRs)
- Code review
- Cross platform CI pipelines/runners
- Release hosting
Of these key things, what is Github good at and how much can you improve by providing an alternative that's faster/cheaper/more robust?
Of these I think the only thing Github stays competitive at is "code repository." Everything else kinda sucks and/or is expensive and flaky.
Just as an example, there's that hilarious "just give me an EXE" Reddit post from a few years back. It's fun to laugh it given the state/purpose of Github but you can also look at that as a lost market for Github. Why can't you provide a nice landing page with downloads/installers in a very clean landing page for your project on GitHub? It could even be a premium feature if it means paying for storage/bandwidth.
And don't get me started on actions. Absolute trash tier product that they should be ashamed at the state of.
It’s rough at first but you will learn the baby’s rhythms and preferences. If you track their sleep and wake up times (I did it the old fashioned way in a notebook) you’ll see a pattern emerge pretty quickly, and then it gets easier because you will figure out how to work with it.
Every baby is different so most of the advice you find won’t work, but if you try enough things you’ll eventually find something that works consistently. Or you might just luck out and get a good sleeper.
The big tip I have for you is to understand wake windows. Babies can get too tired to sleep(!) so you need to make sure to put them to sleep roughly 1-1.5 hours after they last wake up.
Follow a routine every day. I posted elsewhere in this thread what worked for us. It was tough when they were infants because neither of ours slept through night till about 2. The routine saved us.
try co-sleeping, and also a comfortable baby-carrier that allows you to carry the baby around while keeping your hands free so you can work. the most difficult from babies not sleeping is that they are not supposed to sleep alone. see attachment theory. the other advice, if you can follow it, is to sleep yourself every time the baby sleeps. again, co-sleeping makes that easier.
I dunno, we found that our kid slept slightly better moved to his own room at 5 or 6 months old. Although that meant maybe 4 wakings rather than 5. Now he's nearly three years old and sleeps solidly for 10 or 11 hours. My guess is that food and metabolism have a big part to play.
If their technology choices are holding them back it just means the product becomes more turbulent as they desperately thrash for a way to make more money.
A protocol isn't a good enough reason for investors not getting their payday. They'll just force aggressive and reckless changes to see a return.
The only way this kind of thing works is if profit isn't in the equation, or the easiest path to profit lines up with what's best for the customers.
This is why I'm skeptical about bluesky in general. Despite the protocol, it's incredibly centralised. If they wanted to make money it won't be long before they start putting up the walls around their garden. The same thing applied here as well, if investors demand a return the open protocol usage will shrink or become less open.
I'm unpersuaded by the assertion that closing the source is an effective security bulwark.
From that page:
> Today, AI can be pointed at an open source codebase and systematically scan it for vulnerabilities.
Yeah, and AI can also be pointed at closed source as soon as that source leaks. The threat has increased for both open and closed source in roughly the same amount.
In fact, open source benefits from white hat scanning for vulnerabilities, while closed source does not. So when there's a vuln in open source, there will likely be a shorter window between when it is known by attackers and when authors are alerted.
The HN discussion on the announcement is just 90% posts of the theme "if a student can brute force your FOSS for $100, they can do you proprietary code for $200" and "if it's that cheap to find exploits, why don't you just do it yourself before pushing the code to prod?"
I believe that the reason the chose to close the source is just security theater to demonstrate to investors and clients. "Look at all these FOSS projects getting pwned, that's why you can trust us, because we're not FOSS". There is, of course, probably a negative correlation between closing source and security. I'd argue that the most secure operating systems, used in fintech, health, government, etc, got to be so secure specifically by allowing tens or hundreds of thousands of people to poke at their code and then allowing thousands or tens of thousands of people to fix said vulns pro bono.
I'd be interested to see an estimation of the financial value of the volunteer work on say the linux or various bsd kernels. Imagine the cost of PAYING to produce the modern linux kernel. Millions and possibly billions of dollars just assuming average SWE compensation rates, I'd wager.
Too bad cal.com is too short sighted to appreciate volunteers.
I think it's more prosaic, OSS is great for building a userbase but not great at generating revenue. So just wave the OSS flag while you build a userbase, then pull out whichever flimsy excuse seems workable at the time when you want to start step two of your enshittification plan.
Not only are they good at reading and writing machine code now, they are actively being used to turn video game cartridge dumps back into open source code the community can then compile for modern platforms.
If you believe they really did it for security, I have a very nice bridge to sell you for an extremely low price ...
Look, tech companies lie all the time to make their bad decisions sound less bad. Simple example: almost every "AI made us more efficient" announcement is really just a company making (unpopular) layoffs, but trying to brand them as being part of an "efficiency effort".
I'd bet $100 this company just wants to go closed source for business reasons, and (just like with the layoffs masquerading as "AI efficiency") AI is being used as the scapegoat.
Seems like a nice way to raise a bit of money for the foundation, and the problem of children needing email addresses is a real one. I just don't understand how reserving an email address years before they need it actually improves their privacy.
Is this really just a case of reserving an address if your child has a common first name and last name, without having to keep the address active?
Could you elaborate on the issues with their S3 compatible storage? I've been considering it and haven't seen too many issues in my testing, beyond the lack of identity control.
I cannot say much about the quality, but I am also testing around with it at the moment. As for the identity control, you may be able to achieve this with a few extra steps, if you set up bucket policies for the credentials. For this, it would be a bit cleaner to move the storage box to a project of its own.
Absolutely not, that would prevent profits to big political donors. Instead we should ban bash oneliners, or ID gate them. No loops or pipes (etc) unless you've handed over government issued ID.
Google pay Mozilla hundreds of millions of dollars each year to place Google as the default browser. It's by far their biggest income stream. In 2023 it was reported as 75% of their revenue.
There's no world in which 75% of your revenue coming from Google doesn't influence what you do. Even if it's not the main driver of all decisions, pissing off Google is a huge risk for them.
If the plaintiff pays 500 million to the judge and the defendant goes to jail, there's no proof that the judge wouldn't have made the same decision without the 500 million. If you're a fool, you'll sneer and ask "Where's the proof?"
Well if you bring up law how about: innocent until proven guilty?
Google is not bribing Mozilla...they probably keep them alive to avoid all kinds of monopoly lawsuits. With their market share however, you would need more prove to justify further conspiracies...
First, there's the chicken and egg problem of content (events) and consumers. One big part of the sales process is a venue or promoter understanding how your platform will support their sales and marketing processes. If you already have consumers with an app and push notifications, it's an easy sell.
Another issue is cash flow. Deals often depends on what advance you're willing to pay, and it's not uncommon for very large venues to get signed at a loss just for the content. You need the cash to compete, and the big boys will happily take a hit on the big venues to hold onto them. The actual take per ticket is quite a low margin, and if a venue performs worse than you'd hoped you can easily end up making a lot less than planned.
Then you've got all the usual RFP noise around feature offerings. Plus regulation in different countries (looking at you, Italy).
You need investors to fund your sales process, and your development all at very low margins. You also need all the industry connections to build an enterprise sales pipeline and secure business. All of that is to say it's a difficult industry to get any sort of a foot hold in, let alone grow enough to be a serious contender.
The company I worked at ended up doing several rounds of layoffs followed by a very poor sale with no consideration to staff options. It's limping on as it slowly gets absorbed into the company who bought them who are also in the ticketing and event space.
reply