Chart of YC companies' hosting decisions, 2010 edition

http://jpf.github.com/domain-profiler/ycombinator.html?2010

by jf • 16 years ago

339 164 16 years ago

jpf.github.com

I'm not affiliated with the company in anyway, but I'm a big fan of http://iwantmyname.com/ for domain registration. Super quick and easy especially if you're using Heroku or GAE.

It's depressing how little GoDaddy has innovated and how dominant it still is.

jf16• 16 years ago

Many people expressed the same sentiment when I posted this last year: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=746386

I did note a small reduction in the percentage of YC domains registered with GoDaddy, but nothing significant. :/

olalonde2• 16 years ago

For me, a domain name is a commodity, so I go for the cheapest: GoDaddy.

staunch3• 16 years ago

1and1 is almost always cheaper than GoDaddy. Currently it's $4.99 for the first year and $8.99 afterwards. GoDaddy is $11.99 per year.

gommm• 16 years ago

It is but I value my time more than the one dollar difference between GoDaddy and namecheap... I don't want to spend time navigating through all the bunch of upsell crap from GoDaddy and then pulling my hair dealing with their awful dns settings...

ohashi• 16 years ago

I pay nearly at registration costs elsewhere. Godaddy isn't the cheapest.

Godaddy has done the most/best marketing, that's all.

olalonde2• 16 years ago

I'm surprised Slicehost is not present. Perhaps is it included in Rackspace?

redstripe2• 16 years ago

Perhaps. Heroku clients seem to be included in the amazon group based on the SSL cert.

jf16• 16 years ago

Yes. I give my justifications for doing so in this commit: https://github.com/jpf/domain-profiler/commit/b00aba5d641021...

Should I keep them separate?

pclark• 16 years ago

IHMO, yes.

mdda• 16 years ago

Please split them out.

What many people here are looking for is a snapshot of the choices a group of smart people have made : Going to rackspace.com is a whole different choice than heading over to slicehost.com.

rottencupcakes• 16 years ago

I was wondering if anybody who uses Slicehost would elaborate on the advantages of Slicehost over Linode?

At the surface, it would seem that Linode offers more bang for your buck (almost twice as much) and outdoes Slice in the performance benchmarks.

Thoughts?

ig12• 16 years ago

Slicehost is more friendly to inexperienced sys admins in terms of docs, etc.

noodle• 16 years ago

i started using slicehost a while before i knew of linode. haven't switched due to not having the time to make the switch.

mcantor• 16 years ago

Slicehost is simpler, Linode is more feature-rich.

code_duck2• 16 years ago

I moved away from Slicehost due to frequent performance problems, which I found were related to disk thoroughput. This was at the STL data center. It was driving me nuts until I figured out it wasn't due to something going on in my own system. I had a spare Linde which was relatively trouble free, so I moved the main server to Linode and it has been so much better. Currently it has 2-3 times the activity as the server doing the same job had on slicehost with no performance problems, ever. AND it is cheaper than Slicehost.

redstripe2• 16 years ago

So despite the vociferous defense app engine received here about a month ago after some criticism it looks like no YC companies actually use it?

noahc• 16 years ago

I think a large part of this has to do with programming language choice. I suspect there is a large group of ruby hackers out there who can only use Amazon, and not GAE.

simonw• 16 years ago

A survey of language choice by YC companies would be interesting - I think Python is actually very well represented.

I'd guess that the reason people aren't using AppEngine is more that it's strategically a pretty bad idea. You can't move off it, and its constraints have a major effect on how you design and architect your application. When you're still figuring out what your product is, using a platform that requires you to design your data storage to fit the queries you are going to run isn't necessarily that smart.

naner• 16 years ago

Heroku seems like a better analog to AppEngine for Rubyists than Amazon's services.

Heff• 16 years ago

It could be that the app isn't hosted at the same place as the public site (which this chart reports on). That's how it is for Zencoder.

babyshake• 16 years ago

Jobspice is hosted by App Engine. The host field says "Google".

imdane• 16 years ago

We chose GAE for JobSpice for a number of reasons, but yes, JobSpice is a GAE app.

pauldino• 16 years ago

It looks like this is considering only the root domain, and for App Engine hosted sites this would probably be an external server not hosted by Google that just redirects you to the www subdomain (where you'd have your CNAME to ghs.google.com), so they wouldn't show up as such.

Wattvision is hosted on App Engine.

detst• 16 years ago

This. As jf says below, "host is determined by the name of the owner of the netblock that the IP address of the A record for that domain is in..."

You can't point an A record at App Engine.

klochner• 16 years ago

Anyone that's self-hosting email care to explain why they're doing it? Seems like something that makes no sense to do internally until you start getting more "enterprisey".

onteria2• 16 years ago

I don't personally host my own email, but I can see it from the perspective of data control. If you use Google Apps for example, your email exists on their servers. I personally don't mind that, but others may not be so welcoming. Also if you want a more detailed email setup with regards to routing and filters, it may be difficult / costly in finding a provider.

lisper2• 16 years ago

I'm not affiliated with a YC company, but I do self-host my email. My reasons:

1. I'm a control freak and a privacy freak. I don't trust any third party with my email. I want to know how things work under the hood. And if I want to make a change, I don't want to have to depend on any third party to do it.

2. It's not hard to do. apt-get install postfix and dovecot, invest a couple of hours munging config files, and you're done.

3. Much easier to transition your data if you do get "enterprisey." All your data is on your server, so you can just tar it up and ship it anywhere.

4. You can configure the server so that insecure connections are not possible, making it that much less likely that someone will leak a password accidentally.

5. Stealth. It's much less likely that someone will try to break into my server than into Google's servers.

maukdaddy2• 16 years ago

  2. It's not hard to do. apt-get install postfix and dovecot, invest a couple of hours munging config files, and you're done

Bullshit. There's troubleshooting when things go wrong, patching, maintenance, etc.

edit: don't forget adding additional storage, managing spam and malware filtering, user admin, backups, and other tasks.

  5. Stealth. It's much less likely that someone will try to break into my server than into Google's servers.

You wish. Your single server is much easier to target and break into than Google's.

staunch3• 16 years ago

#4 Google Apps lets you require SSL.

haribilalic2• 16 years ago

5. Stealth. It's much less likely that someone will try to break into my server than into Google's servers.

It's more likely that someone will break into your server than Google's, isn't it?

A thing I learnt while running my own server was that all you needed to be a victim of automated attacks was to have an IP address.

mike-cardwell2• 16 years ago

One of the main benefits of self hosting is the MTA logs. When self hosting, you know if the message has got as far as the recipients mail server, and you know if the recipients server has attempted to deliver mail to you. You also have ultimate control over the spam filtering, which I find very important.

driverdan• 16 years ago

> 1. I'm a control freak and a privacy freak. I don't trust any third party with my email. I want to know how things work under the hood. And if I want to make a change, I don't want to have to depend on any third party to do it.

Email should be considered public. Unless you're using encryption it's sent in plaintext and could easily be stored on any server it goes through. While it may be harder for the gov to get access to it a clever hacker or employee can still get it.

> 5. Stealth. It's much less likely that someone will try to break into my server than into Google's servers.

Security by obscurity is not security at all.

xpaulbettsx• 16 years ago

My biggest problem when I self-hosted my mail is that when my server did something strange, I was losing Emails being sent to me.

pbreit2• 16 years ago

Startups should spend energy on thngs that matter, not email.

there• 16 years ago

i've hosted my own e-mail for over 10 years and provide imap hosting to my customers. my main reason for doing it is having control over my own data, backups, and logs. my customers use it because they don't need an exchange server (my servers do caldav for calendar sharing) and don't trust google.

i do complex server-side filtering with procmail to keep my inbox clean (so all of my devices polling my mailbox will only alert me when something important comes through), automatically archive all email in an "allmail" backup folder, and do things like rewrite e-mail headers for certain conditions.

gaiusparx• 16 years ago

I have to agree there is no such a need when you just started. Just go over to Google Apps and its done. Unless your service is build around or require email such as Posterous.

felix0702• 16 years ago

One possible reason is that Google can be a potential competitor, buyer or in an event which leaking email information to Google might jeopardize company's growth.

birken3• 16 years ago

Very surprising so many people use Godaddy for their DNS, given it is very slow as far as DNS servers go. I've been running a Pingdom speed/reliability test for a few popular DNS servers for the past few months, and here is the data:

  Guide:
  <dns provider> <uptime %> <downtime> <outages> <avg speed>
  
  October:
  Godaddy DNS	100.00%	0h 00m 00s	0	68 ms
  Dynect SMB	100.00%	0h 00m 00s	0	31 ms
  DNSMadeEasy	100.00%	0h 00m 00s	0	39 ms
  
  November:
  Godaddy DNS	100.00%	0h 00m 00s	0	67 ms
  Dynect SMB	100.00%	0h 00m 00s	0	26 ms
  DNSMadeEasy	99.98%	0h 10m 00s	1	43 ms
  
  December:
  Godaddy DNS	99.99%	0h 05m 00s	1	58 ms
  Dynect SMB	100.00%	0h 00m 00s	0	28 ms
  DNSMadeEasy	99.00%	7h 25m 00s	22	40 ms

So basically Godaddy DNS is reliable but slow, DNSMadeEasy is relatively fast but had some uptime troubles in December, and Dynect (Dyn Inc) is fast + super reliable.

As for pricing:

- Godaddy DNS is free (I think?)

- DNSMadeEasy runs about $2-5/month (max of 10 million queries/month)

- Dynect SMB runs between $30-95/month depending on what you need (max of 1.8 million queries/month)

jreposa• 16 years ago

Dynect has been super fast and reliable for us. Their customer service is also top notch.

If your serious about availability, this is the place to start.

jasonemerick• 16 years ago

Any data on Amazon's route53 DNS offering?

birken3• 16 years ago

Nope, it was just these 3 (as we were deciding between DNSMadeEasy and Dynect, and wanted to throw Godaddy in there for comparison).

Although we currently use DNSMadeEasy, and due to the uptime issues we might be looking to switch at which point I'll cast a broader net. Of course if you have a pingdom account, setting up these DNS checks is quite easy. They have a special monitoring type just for DNS.

biot2• 16 years ago

Were the DNSMadeEasy outages related to their DDoS after they terminated DNS services for Wikileaks?

dchest• 16 years ago

That was EveryDNS.net

birken3• 16 years ago

Well to be completely fair to DNSMadeEasy, this failure wasn't necessarily their entire service, it was just the one nameserver pingdom was testing, ns10.dnsmadeeasy.com. However, both GoDaddy and Dynect were tested using just one nameserver, so the comparison is fair.

I'm not sure what the cause of it was though.

csmeder• 16 years ago

I'm very surprised how many people use GoDaddy in any form. To leave your domain name in the hands of some one with such a bad reputation seems risky. eg. http://www.google.com/search?q=go+daddy+stole+my+domain+name

Maybe for YC 2011 we could have a start up compete with GoDaddy. If some one started a trustworthy domain register targeted at start ups I could see it doing well.

russmeaculp4• 16 years ago

Yes the pricing is just ridiculous.... I never knew that the Dynect SMB went over 600k... they must have just increased that recently.... But $95 per month for 1.8 million queries.... INSANE!!! and now Amazon Route 53 is 50 cents per million queries..... they are going to eat everyone's lunch!

russmeaculp4• 16 years ago

Which name server were you using from each provider?

russmeaculp4• 16 years ago

Found this post recently at http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=1004995.

This report actually checked an average of all name servers on Pingdom for a month. The full posting said:

I have been really down on Dynect because of their sales approach and their in-the-face cocky attitude. My very few interactions with them have been to immediately put down companies and competitors with complete BS statements.

But I have seen many people say how great the performance is. So did a pingdom test for all of their servers (used Twitter) and I did a test for all of my name servers on DNS Made Easy.

These are averages for "ALL" name servers.

DNS Made Easy: Avg. Response Time 34 ms Slowest avg. response time 58 ms Fastest avg. response time 23 ms

Dynect: Avg. Response Time 37 ms Slowest avg. response time 59 ms Fastest avg. response time 27 ms

Now Pingdom only does US and Europe testing... nothing in Asia where is looks like Dynect is stronger. But their network is no where as strong as they say it is. I have done as many trace routes as possible and I can never get a query answered in their singapore or australia locations.

So really... I do not get it.... Where is Dynect faster? Now I know this is only for the past month.... but really.... I think DNS Made Easy runs a hell of a network and they are a fraction of the Dynect guys (whom I have negative feelings about anyway).

Looking at tools like www.dnscomparison.com it looks like DNSMadeEasy is fastest some weeks, Dynect is fast other weeks, UltraDNS is faster some other weeks. Of course I'm not sure how "honest" this is as well.

But create a pingdom account... do some tests... be interested in seeing other results.

So far I say that DNSMadeEasy is as fast or faster then the ones that are many times more expensive.

onteria2• 16 years ago

Oh, a bit of a side note on hosting for startups. I know many people want to save costs by centralizing hosting, but as a word of advice keep your database, mail, and web servers separated. By not doing so you've created a single point of failure. Not only that, but it makes securing things appropriately more difficult (ie. you are unable to create only web server specific firewall rules for the server).

bobfunk• 16 years ago

A good trick we've been using while building http://www.webpop.com has been to use the cheap small instances on the Rackspace cloud to build a mini version of a nice distributed setup with load balancers, web servers, database servers, monitoring, etc...

The small instances are very cheap, and we've been automating everything with chef, so it's east for us to gradually scale up by adding large instances to our cluster instead of small ones.

This means we've been able to build a scalable and secure infrastructure, that didn't cost us much more than a hundred bucks a month during development.

jamroom• 16 years ago

We've been doing the same thing on Linode, and initially did our development on Rackspace cloud. One important thing to note about Rackspace cloud is that your private network bandwidth is limited to 10mbps when you're on their small Xen instances - this may not be a big deal during development, but after you go live if you have any traction, then with simultaneous backups, sql replication, and any other chatter that might be happening between servers, it can really "slow down", and you might end up having to move to larger instances simply for the port speed, even though your existing server is sufficient in regards to CPU, RAM and disk.

Our testing ended up leading us back to Linode, since with a simple support ticket you can up your private interface to the full 100mbps. So our "combo" ended up being Linode + Amazon S3 (since for many of our items the reduced redundancy storage is sufficient, and is half the price of could files).

It's sure fun though setting up your own small "cloud" system ;)

c22• 16 years ago

Loopt is self hosted? Is that actually cost effective? I can understand a company like justin.tv being self hosted, but loopt makes less sense to me.

seiji2• 16 years ago

As far as I know, Loopt is a 100% Microsoft shop. When they started, large scale hosted Windows subletting wasn't wide spread.

kogir2• 16 years ago

It still isn't if you want to be using the latest and greatest. Even Amazon only offer Windows Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008. We're using the R2 editions of both.

kogir2• 16 years ago

We're not 100% Microsoft. Probably 80% though.

We do it for security and privacy reasons. It matters less now, but for getting early carrier deals it was key, and now those agreements still bind us.

I use Amazon EC2 personally and would love to use it for more at Loopt, but can't.

c22• 16 years ago

Ah interesting, that makes sense. I'm sure carriers threw a bunch of inane capital intensive requirements at you. Frame relay anyone?

pbreit2• 16 years ago

No wonder Loopt got left in the dust.

blahpro• 16 years ago

I’m surprised that no–one is using Linode.

lacker3• 16 years ago

We (Gamador) are using Linode but it does not list us as using Linode, so I suspect this is a problem with the script.

jf16• 16 years ago

Host is determined by the name of the owner of the netblock that the IP address of the A record for that domain is in...

Encosia• 16 years ago

Surprised to see no one using Linode.

lacker3• 16 years ago

We (Gamador) are using Linode, but it lists us as being from some no-name hosting. So something is awry with the Linode stats.

jf16• 16 years ago

I'll fix that after I'm done with the meeting I'm in now.

Edit: Fixed.

lacker3• 16 years ago

Our company (Gamador) is listed as hosting from "Global Net Access LLC" which I had never heard of - we just use Linode. So there might be some Linode undercounting going on.

mgrouchy• 16 years ago

I was going to mention, I found it hard to believe there wasn't a single Startup using Linode.

ubuntuftw• 16 years ago

I was equally surprised!

ig12• 16 years ago

I believe Global Net Access LLC owns the subnet of IP addresses that Linode use.

jf16• 16 years ago

I updated my script to take that into account. The page has has been updated to reflect that change.

axod• 16 years ago

FWIW Linode has 5 datacenters, and at least 5 address ranges, so there may be more undercounting going on for them.

jf16• 16 years ago

I apparently need to do a little more work on programmatically detecting companies hosted by Linode.

Comments, ideas, bugs and patches welcome. The program I used to generate the report is hosted on GitHub here: https://github.com/jpf/domain-profiler/

JshWright• 16 years ago

Net Access Corp is the owner of the datacenter Linode uses in Newark

zmmmmm• 16 years ago

Yes, there's something very strange here when there are ~6 companies using Linode for DNS but only one for hosting - I'm happy to be corrected but I'd be quite surprised if people use Linode DNS without also using the hosting.

jf16• 16 years ago

Okay! I've updated my chart. Companies that are using Linode should be accurately reported now.

This is mostly thanks to the suggestion from HN user jedsmith. I've updated my script to incorporate what should be a more accurate way of determining the name of an organization that owns a particular IP address.

haribilalic2• 16 years ago

I'd like to move my email away from Google Apps, for various reasons, but they have the best spam filter by far. It's worth sticking with them just for that.

andreaja• 16 years ago

Would you care to elaborate? I'm just getting to grips with Google Apps and would be interested in what experiences others have had with it.

chunkbot• 16 years ago

There is very little spam; what's to elaborate?

xsc• 16 years ago

Seems like a few companies have chosen WebFaction for email hosting. Any specific reason?

bco• 16 years ago

I was wondering the same thing. Maybe they started out on WebFaction before moving to a VPS or cloud server and decided to keep their email there?

philfreo• 16 years ago

Doesn't YC have a special discount with one or more of the hosting providers, which might be influencing decisions?

Tichy• 16 years ago

Too lazy to Google, but I think they have deal with Rackspace.

tasaro• 16 years ago

Yes, many hosting providers offer(ed) free/discounted service to YC companies with various lengths of string attached.

Sukotto• 16 years ago

I'm interested in seeing aggregates of technology choices like: primary database, main programming language(s), frameworks, etc

bradleyland• 16 years ago

I'd love to see that too, but it's not something you can easily identify just by querying their web server. This list was compiled using the domain-profiler tool:

https://github.com/jpf/domain-profiler

vaksel• 16 years ago

I think it's very telling that something like 60% of YC companies have a SSL certificate...means they are most likely processing some financial transactions, so they charge their users directly

it's also interesting that so many are using the hurricane electric host...never even heard of them before

jonknee• 16 years ago

Or they like to handle logins properly.

jf16• 16 years ago

Or that they paid attention when Firesheep came out.

lftl• 16 years ago

> it's also interesting that so many are using the hurricane electric host...never even heard of them before

I'm fairly sure Linode's West coast datacenter is in a Hurricane Electric facility so imagine those are simply Linode customers.

jf16• 16 years ago

Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. Maybe I can figure out a way to separate those hosts out from HE based on some other factor.

lambda2• 16 years ago

HE is a pretty nice colo facility and backbone; not many people use them for hosting directly, but instead for colo/dedicated servers. Other hosts using their colo facility may be listed as HE. They're also one of the more well known proponents of IPv6, offering free IPv6 tunnel brokerage services, so if you need to support IPv6 or would like an IPv6 address block, they can help you out.

tsycho• 16 years ago

I am surprised to see no heroku.

tedunangst• 16 years ago

Look at the SSL column for *.heroku.com. They are all listed as using AWS for web hosting.

dguido• 16 years ago

I love that despite all the Firesheep business, about half of the companies on that list don't even own an SSL certificate. :-(

dsmithn• 16 years ago

Google Apps uses Go Daddy for domain registration. Would that be why there are similar number of Google Email users and Go Daddy Registrars?

aneth• 16 years ago

Great to see godaddy successfully disrupting the ripoff ssl certificate market.

dtran• 16 years ago

This is pretty cool Joel! Small nitpick - Zerigo is spelled incorrectly as "Zeroigo".

oldgregg• 16 years ago

I recently switched to Zerigo after years with DNSMadeEasy. I got tired of their clunky interface from 1993 and their login captcha (?!). Zerigo has a fantastic UI, quite refreshing...

jf16• 16 years ago

Thanks for the heads up. Fixed.

xhtmlweaver• 16 years ago

i am very surprised that linode is not in the chart for webhosting section! something must be wrong

ghshephard• 16 years ago

I find this chart fascinating - though I'm wondering how much of Rackspace is Rackspace "Cloud" and how much of Rackspace is "VPS". Also, I'm embarrassed to admit that I'd never heard of SoftLayer as a server hosting company - I wonder what the attraction there is.

For Web Hosts it comes (roughly) to:

  o Amazon EC2
  o Rackspace Cloud
  o Self Hosted (Surprisingly large number)
  o Slicehost
  o Hurricane Electric (which is likely self hosted? EDIT (per jedsmith) Linode?)

Two things I found very, very surprising.

  #1 - Small use of Linode 
  #2 - How much Rackspace is used more than Slicehost.

Anybody care to comment on why SoftLayer is so predominant?

jedsmith5• 16 years ago

The small use of Linode is a mistake in the script.

callmeed2• 16 years ago

> Anybody care to comment on why SoftLayer is so predominant?

My guesses are: (a) they provide dedicated servers that are comparable to Rackspace but at a lower cost (but with a support trade-off), (b) they also offer cloud computing and storage instances that are decent (in my experience).

nwilkens• 16 years ago

I operate a server management company.

We we have worked with many providers, including all of those listed.

We continue to recommend Softlayer for leased dedicated hardware needs because of the features they provide, and the solid network infrastructure (although they do have hiccups on occasion).

Softlayer has a great support team, fast server deployment (1-2 hours) and full management capabilities - power strip reboot, IPMI KVM, OS reloads, etc..

jjoe2• 16 years ago

I wouldn't trust Softlayer with my clients' data. Look at what happened to SimpleCDN and others. In a matter of a couple of days Softlayer pulled the plug on all their servers. SimpleCDN was erased from the CDN map. They used to have over 100 servers with them.

Regards

jamwt• 16 years ago

SoftLayer is a superb dedicated hosting provider--maybe the best. They have a competent staff, several datacenters all over the US, a very good, low-latency network (public and private), high-quality management tools, super high uptime and QOS, and fair pricing.

So if you want to run on bare metal, but you don't want to rack servers yourself, they're a compelling option.

(I'm jamie@bu.mp, and as you can see from the spreadsheet, we use softlayer)

calloc• 16 years ago

Softlayer also just bought The Planet, although I am not sure if that has anything to do with it...

jim_h• 16 years ago

I don't see any prgmr.com hosting. I've seen it mentioned quite a few times in when people were looking for hosting.

AdamGibbins• 16 years ago

prgmr will appear has Hurricane Electric ash thats who I believe provide all their IP space.

callmeed2• 16 years ago

So, no YC companies on Rails use Heroku? (or is that lumped into Amazon?)

cyen• 16 years ago

It's lumped into Amazon.

ashleyw• 16 years ago

Look at the 'certificate type' column for *.heroku.com. That shows at least 8 using Heroku.

ivankirigin• 16 years ago

Missing are data stores. Web store isn't the same thing. I'd like to see the percentage that use S3.

Aegean• 16 years ago

what is the catch with google as email hosting? we use rackspace, it seems nobody is using rackspace for email. What is the criteria in choosing email hosting?

damoncali• 16 years ago

Google Apps email is free and easy. The paranoid will not use it, because Google can read your email, possibly with good reason.

jedberg• 16 years ago

Is this only pre-acquisition companies?

Where's reddit? ;)

FWIW:

Web Host: EC2 (Amazon)

Email Host: Self hosted

DNS Host: Akamai

Registrar: Corporation Service Company

SSL Issuer: None

Certificate Type: None

jf16• 16 years ago

> Is this only pre-acquisition companies?

Yes, it's a "List of active Y Combinator startups that haven't exited yet."

https://github.com/jpf/domain-profiler/blob/master/ycombinat...

code_duck2• 16 years ago

"Corporation Service Company" has to be one of the most generic names ever.

d_r• 16 years ago

I'm surprised not to see more alternatives to GoDaddy for registrars (say, NameCheap.) GoDaddy interface and upselling are simply infuriating and I've always thought of it as a "Wal-Mart for domains/etc," not something a tech-savvy startup would use.

bauchidgw• 16 years ago

best charts ever

corin_• 16 years ago

Surprised to see none of them using Route 53. Suspect that won't be the case in a year's time.

eurohacker• 16 years ago

would have been even better if the "language decisions" would also be included - what programming language each startup has

nopassrecover• 16 years ago

Surprised how few of these I knew, considering I read HN pretty regularly

Chart of YC companies' hosting decisions, 2010 edition

Related Stories