I don't have a repo on GitHub and while it may certainly be better than SF (and probably is, judging by the comments here), I have to take issue with the overa

I don't have a repo on GitHub and while it may certainly be better than SF (and probably is, judging by the comments here), I have to take issue with the overall quality of this article. 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.