Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
GitHub finally raises funding (GigaOm)GitHub finally raises funding (GigaOm)Posted Jul 10, 2012 18:17 UTC (Tue) by karim (subscriber, #114)In reply to: GitHub finally raises funding (GigaOm) by b7j0c Parent article: GitHub finally raises funding (GigaOm)
I (and I suspect many others) use github because it's a git that just works with no fuss. *That* it does and does well. It's "forking" feature is nice, but nothing I couldn't just do by cloning someone else tree. Sourceforge did many of the things you state and it still got so far. Github embodies the current open development paradigm. If past is prelude, though, these things tend to expire at some point.
(Log in to post comments)
GitHub finally raises funding (GigaOm) Posted Jul 10, 2012 20:10 UTC (Tue) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]
i don't think the failure of sourceforge really says anything at all about github. sourceforge didn't have a dvcs that had become a social phenomenon. sourceforge didn't have any community features. sourceforge also addressed a developer market which is a fraction of the size of todays, and did so at a time when there wasn't clear acceptance of web tools in the workflow. in short: sourceforge was too early.
GitHub finally raises funding (GigaOm) Posted Jul 11, 2012 1:51 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
That's not sufficient explanation. SourceForge exists today, now that the need is painfully clear, and still nobody uses it. (hyperbole of course: lots of people use it but nothing compared to GitHub).
GitHub finally raises funding (GigaOm) Posted Jul 11, 2012 14:18 UTC (Wed) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Perhaps it's just that SourceForge's user interface, even post-upgrade, makes me want to stick cocktail sticks into my eyes. Its mailing list archive interface in particular is unimaginably awful: I've never seen *anything* worse.
|
|||||||||||||