>> You can argue that GitHub and GitLab have UI that degrades a developer's experience. [...] And all of those arguments may be right. But right now, I'd argue

>> You can argue that GitHub and GitLab have UI that degrades a developer's experience. [...] And all of those arguments may be right. But right now, I'd argue that this design hurts mass adoption > You seem to be stuck with confirmation bias: Just because the way things are doesn't mean they're optimal I'm afraid you haven't understood my words. I'm not talking about optimal, in fact, optimal is explicitly made a non-goal in my comment. You can tell me about VHS vs Betamax, and all I can say is I had never even heard of Betamax until I saw people talking about it on HN. You can tell me Plan 9 is better than Linux, or that (insert obscure brand here) is better than Heinz. Mass-adopted solution != optimal solution. Mass-adoption doesn't even require products to attain local optima, let alone global optima. I use an obscure toothpaste that comes in tablets in glass bottles - totally obscure, likely will never reach mass-adoption, but it is better. I was not aware that mass-adoption was not a goal of SourceHut, and I mistakenly assumed it was. Without mass-adoption as a goal, I can totally see how this mentality you expressed makes perfect sense, and I personally agree with it for less-well-adopted things that I use too: "If it does survive, then we all progress. If it doesn't, it was a great experiment"