41–50 of 52 posts
I may overestime myself a little here, but I'm pretty sure that's the main/only reason Github succeeded. Not some new pricing scheme.
I would only argue one point in this: Github is not a developer's paradise. It's good. In fact, it's really good. But it has one huge weakness, something which all DVCS repositories seem to have followed: they charge per repository. This is a terrible pricing model. It should, if anything, be based on per-GB of storage regardless of repositories. Otherwise it gets hideously expensive for people to, say, have many sma…
Bitbucket charges by "private users". You can host as many open source projects as you want--many forks of the Linux kernel, for example--for free. However, if you want a private repository, you can only give read/write access to 5 people with the free account. https://bitbucket.org/plans That's why I use it for all my projects--I have a Plan 9 kernel fork, an Inferno OS fork, and a bunch of smaller projects for a to…
i was hosting the source code for my android rom on bitbucket because i would have had to pay for a big github account (over 1gb of code in 166 repos). i emailed github's support team and they said it wouldn't be a problem, so i moved everything to github.
It seems to me the author doesn't know sf.net too well. sf.net does still quite well for hosting web pages. I don't know pidgin but I wouldn't be too surprised if the homepage is hosted at sf.net and if pidgin.im simply is an alternative address for pidgin.sf.net. They (sf.net) are notorious for their downtimes though.
I would only argue one point in this: Github is not a developer's paradise. It's good. In fact, it's really good. But it has one huge weakness, something which all DVCS repositories seem to have followed: they charge per repository. This is a terrible pricing model. It should, if anything, be based on per-GB of storage regardless of repositories. Otherwise it gets hideously expensive for people to, say, have many sma…
Unfuddle charges by space used, not per-repo. For Git projects, the per-repo pricing of Github is insane. They don't even have a public pricing plan for the number of repos I'd need for my personal (and private) coding. I use Unfuddle for my private and business code.
note: I have never used it personally.
It's absolutely astonishing to me that nobody ever mentions how Github handles viewing code. I always thought it's painfully obvious why Github won. They make viewing code easy. Duh. They have that nice little animation of code sliding in which lets me think that I'm not waiting forever, and I can actually navigate and explore other people's code. I may overestime myself a little here, but I'm pretty sure that's the…
> Firstly, it’s not because GitHub’s front-end is nicer Nope, I'm pretty sure that's the reason.
I would only argue one point in this: Github is not a developer's paradise. It's good. In fact, it's really good. But it has one huge weakness, something which all DVCS repositories seem to have followed: they charge per repository. This is a terrible pricing model. It should, if anything, be based on per-GB of storage regardless of repositories. Otherwise it gets hideously expensive for people to, say, have many sma…
First of all, when I started reading the article, I genuinely expected that it would be a good analysis of why GitHub surpassed Sourceforge, but instead it read like a GitHub fanboy's rant about how much cooler GitHub is. Some of the things said about SF are simply not true, for example, one of his main points - that if you host your project on SF, your project page is your website and that's it, the only other way to have a website is to host it elsewhere. That's simply not true. SF does provide web hosting, and your domain name is not some convoluted URL, it's "yourprojectname.sourceforge.net".
The author of the article states that GitHub is a "code host". But what does that mean, is SF also not a "code host"? Does it not hold your code in a repo? Except that besides doing that, it also offers a plethora of other services. They might not be the best there are, but hey, they're here, and if you don't want to use them, don't. Want to have a forum hosted by SF? Ok, you can do that. Want to have it somewhere else? No problem, host it elsewhere. Nobody's forcing you. It seems that the author is somehow trying to turn the fact that GitHub doesn't have these features into an advantage for GitHub.
The thing is, this could have really been a good article. There are a number of reasons why devs move away from SourceForge. Unfortunately, the article makes no mention of them. SF's frequent downtime is one of those reasons. The general slowness and unresponsiveness of the site is another. There are good reasons why people are leaving SourceForge. Just not those that the author of this article mentions.
I would only argue one point in this: Github is not a developer's paradise. It's good. In fact, it's really good. But it has one huge weakness, something which all DVCS repositories seem to have followed: they charge per repository. This is a terrible pricing model. It should, if anything, be based on per-GB of storage regardless of repositories. Otherwise it gets hideously expensive for people to, say, have many sma…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that Github's CSS is better, or their graphics are better, but that their design is better, and design encompasses everything, top to bottom. Most things on Github feel effortless, and even the tricky things are far from frustrating. This is evidence that they care, and that care shows in that the graphics and CSS are very well done. Good design doesn't start with appearance, it ends with it.
In Startups Open Sourced , Tom Preston-Warner is interviewed and says to design every detail of every page of a project before touching any code. While graphic design and technical design are very intertwined, I think in Github's case the graphic design came first, or was at least equally weighted. I don't know how SourceForge came to be, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out the backend was designed before the fro…