3 ms·

I hope not everyone at GitHub is so afraid of BitBucket that they need to slander it with an article. Don't they know whining gets you nowhere? I personally di

I hope not everyone at GitHub is so afraid of BitBucket that they need to slander it with an article. Don't they know whining gets you nowhere? I personally didn't see any striking resemblance between any of the pages. Most have obvious content which needs to be displayed (seriously, this guy is complaining about the source code tree being shown the same way? SERIOUSLY? How else do you expect them to display it?). Probably doesn't help that I enjoy the layout of BitBucket more, but this article has been the kick in the shins I needed to get off of GitHub for good. There's obviously something that BitBucket is doing correctly to warrant this amount of attention from the employees of Github, might as well jump ship before it sinks.

banachtarski 13y ago
This article is from 2011 and there are pros and cons to the Github and Bitbucket interface. Back then, the similarities were much more striking and they have become a bit more distant since then. As for "obvious content" for each page, you don't actually know what you're talking about, especially when it comes to UX. What is obvious to you is only obvious in hindsight. Consider Sourceforge (especially the old one) and the current Google Code.
jkrems 13y ago
The article is from 2011 and the author apparently (see top comment) apologized and took it from his blog. Also look at Google Code, trac, ... there's nothing "obvious" about the layout, there are plenty alternatives.
- lotyrin 13y ago
  Exactly, in 2014, Github has tons of clones. Lots more sites have reduced visual clutter nice user flows and allow for social interaction. Both in VCS and in general, what Github is doing is not innovative. In that context, yeah this seems pretty dumb. Github was the first VCS hosting service that took design seriously and kept clutter and bullshit off of all of these different pages (or provided them all). They were the first VCS hosting that realized the power of social interactions around code, before every app under the sun had a social timeline.

banachtarski 13y ago

This article is from 2011 and there are pros and cons to the Github and Bitbucket interface. Back then, the similarities were much more striking and they have become a bit more distant since then. As for "obvious content" for each page, you don't actually know what you're talking about, especially when it comes to UX. What is obvious to you is only obvious in hindsight. Consider Sourceforge (especially the old one) and the current Google Code.

jkrems 13y ago

The article is from 2011 and the author apparently (see top comment) apologized and took it from his blog. Also look at Google Code, trac, ... there's nothing "obvious" about the layout, there are plenty alternatives.

lotyrin 13y ago
Exactly, in 2014, Github has tons of clones. Lots more sites have reduced visual clutter nice user flows and allow for social interaction. Both in VCS and in general, what Github is doing is not innovative. In that context, yeah this seems pretty dumb. Github was the first VCS hosting service that took design seriously and kept clutter and bullshit off of all of these different pages (or provided them all). They were the first VCS hosting that realized the power of social interactions around code, before every app under the sun had a social timeline.