3 ms·
I would argue that SF was always pretty shitty, because it focused entirely on advertising. I remember Chris giving a talk comparing the signup process of GitHu
by schacon 2y ago
I would argue that SF was always pretty shitty, because it focused entirely on advertising. I remember Chris giving a talk comparing the signup process of GitHub and SourceForge. SF had like 8 fields and GitHub had 2. This was because SF wanted to know ad demographic info - where did you hear about us, etc. GitHub just wanted a name and a password. But this was the difference in everything - SF cared about advertisers, not developers. GitHub never thought about what anyone other than the developers using the product wanted.
- devnull3 2y agoAgree but my point is when you see a new and better rival then instead of pivoting SF became even worse and became malware-ised. Also SF was based on SVN. They failed to understand and capitalize on a better tech on the market i.e. git.
- schacon 2y agoThey actually did so very early. In early 2009 they added Git, Hg and Bzr support: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/03/sourceforge-adds-support-for-new-version-control-systems/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/03/sourc... That's less than a year after GitHub launched and was still very small.
- devnull3 2y agoI stand corrected! Thanks!