> Why is GitHub popular? its not because people are "dumb" as others think. > Its because GitHub "Just Works". Git also "just works". GitHub simply offers a h

> Why is GitHub popular? its not because people are "dumb" as others think. > Its because GitHub "Just Works". Git also "just works". GitHub simply offers a higher level of abstraction, a graphical UI, and some value-add features on top of Git. How much better all this really is arguable. I would say that it's disastrous that most developers rely on a centralized service to use a distributed version control system. Nevermind the fact that the service is the single largest repository of open source software, owned and controlled by a giant corporation which has historically been hostile to OSS. GitHub "won" because it came around at the right time, had "Git" in its name—which has been a perpetual cause of confusion w.r.t. its relation with Git—, and boosted by the success of Git itself largely due to the cult of personality around Linus Torvalds. Not because Git was technically superior, or because GitHub "just works". > You don't need obscure tribal knowledge As others have said, a bare repository is certainly not "tribal knowledge". Not anymore than knowing how to use basic Git features. > Like the adge goes, "Technology is best when it is invisible" Eh, all technology is an abstraction layer built on top of other technology. Whether it's "invisible" or not depends on the user, and their comfort level. I would argue that all abstractions also make users "dumber" when it comes to using the layers they abstract. Which is why people who only rely on GitHub lose the ability, or never learn, to use Git properly.