The landing page does a very poor job of explaining how this product differs from established platforms like GitLab, Gitea, or Codeberg, all of which are open source.
Also, I strongly doubt its GitHub Actions compatibility. Even an established and well-maintained project like Act has known compatibility issues, and GitHub's official images are extremely resource-intensive to build.
borromakot 6 hours ago [-]
Haven't looked at the actual product, but my personal advice to this team is not to use terms like `Next-Gen` and `Modern` as their taglines. It turns of real significant buyers from consideration IMHO.
When I hear "next-gen" and "modern" I hear "we don't have a real value proposition except 'its not the incumbent thing'".
mattas 5 hours ago [-]
"The Git Platform for Teams."
ninjalanternshk 5 hours ago [-]
Isn’t that Git?
handfuloflight 6 hours ago [-]
On first glance, it just looks (the features) like a clone of GitHub. Why not provide us the differentiators, what problems it solves (especially for engineering teams with agentic labor) that GitHub doesn't?
adamtaylor_13 6 hours ago [-]
Or tell me what it explicitly doesn't do. I like marketing that says, "We don't X"
It's very clear and not "clever"
brandonmenc 6 hours ago [-]
Sorry, but you need to have at least some info about the humans involved before I would even consider using this.
Rendered at 08:09:49 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
Also, I strongly doubt its GitHub Actions compatibility. Even an established and well-maintained project like Act has known compatibility issues, and GitHub's official images are extremely resource-intensive to build.
When I hear "next-gen" and "modern" I hear "we don't have a real value proposition except 'its not the incumbent thing'".
It's very clear and not "clever"