Gits internals can be confusing at first, but once you understand them there's really nothing you can't do. Being distributed by design also helps.
Plus it didn’t have a mechanism to send contributions. I think GitHub “won” because of its web-based PR system.
GitHub is to sourceforge what Facebook was to MySpace. MySpace was first but it was buggy as hell.
Nope, MySpace did. Or blogs, for that matter. Facebook just co-opted the phenomenon, and has for many become synonymous with it. Just like GitHub has managed to do with git.
A more apt comparison would be comparing Facebook to a hypothetical social media site that when you click on a thumbnail of a user's image, you get a fullsize image of something like goatse...which thankfully doesn't exist(yet).
Lots of companies were doing Git and Mercurial "forges" at the time. Many of them were better than Github.
Everything was evolving nicely (including Git and Github) until Github used VC money to offer everything for free to blow everybody out in order to lock people into their product (for example--export of anything other than code is still hit or miss on Github).
At which point, everything in the source control space completely collapsed.
You might want to go review your history before accusing someone else of that.
Github took $100 million from VCs in 2012. It then took another $250 million from VCs in 2015. Who the hell else was even within an order of magnitude of that in the same timeframe? Nobody. (Gitlab took almost the same amounts but did so somewhere between 5-8 years later depending upon how you count).
Bitbucket got bought by Atlassian in 2012. Atlassian was bootstrapped until it took $60 million in VC in 2010 and had revenues (not profits) of about $100 million in that time frame. It had nowhere near the resources to be able to drop the equivalent of $350 million on Bitbucket between 2012-2015.
If you think SF+CVS is equivalent to GitHub+Git then you never used SF+CVS. Git won because of GitHub, specifically, not because generically it could be hosted on the Internet.
Yep.
> github just makes things easier.
Which is the transition between steps 1 and 2 of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Though the last step is nowadays perhaps unnecessary, depending on how you look at it: Having co-opted FOSS software like git, what you need to extinguish is not that itself, just any other way to use it than your own. The main example of step 2 was of course "Pull Requests".
And I definitely think you're wrong. GitHub has managed to get itself conflated with git, and has benefitting hugely from this confusion.
