4 ms·
Why don't you link to git-scm circa 2009 (when Git started getting popular): http://web.archive.org/web/20090303081943/http://git-scm.com/ http://web.archive.or
by simanyay 14y ago
Why don't you link to git-scm circa 2009 (when Git started getting popular): http://web.archive.org/web/20090303081943/http://git-scm.com/ http://web.archive.org/web/20090303081943/http://git-scm.com... No brand identity? Mascot (or whatever it is in the header) looks amateurish? No thought given ot typograph? And somehow Git managed to kick everyone's ass. Here's a hint how: by being better than all other version control systems and not by having the prettiest website.
- sgdesign 14y agoBut why couldn't you have both?! That's what I mean when I'm talking about a false dichotomy, you're just using a strawman argument.
- simanyay 14y ago(For some reason I can't reply to the reply so will have to post here.) > But why couldn't you have both?! That's what I mean when I'm talking about a false dichotomy, you're just using a strawman argument. You can't have both because people don't have unlimited amount of time and resources. I'm not sure why I have to explain this.
- minikomi 14y agoI love the old git site to be honest. Less eye candy but far more direct in achieving what it does. Hard to knock the domo-kun-esque mascot - with a "you'll get it when you're ready" in-joke to boot.