> I remember SourceForge. It was the best we had, but it sucked! There was a days-to-weeks long approval process for new projects, advertising everywhere, and a

> I remember SourceForge. It was the best we had, but it sucked! There was a days-to-weeks long approval process for new projects, advertising everywhere, and a ridiculously unintuitive UI. And SourceForge was basically the best option as far as finding free hosting for generic open source projects. But then again, so was CVS for version control even further in the past. The question is: How much of that is simply technological progress that would have happened anyway, but possibly without the centralization, and how much of this is actually genuine contribution on the part of github? Simply comparing what github is now to what the alternatives were like a decade ago is not really a useful comparison. Of course (pretty much), what is now is technologically better than what was ten years ago. The question is: Is it better than what the alternatives would have been now?