We had better solutions, but the combination of "FREE!" and "network effects" meant that the GitHub virus won and the Git host came along for the ride.
Even Linus hates the way GitHub does things, but he can't do anything about it at this point except complain.
This is not a compelling argument against GitHub (and, as others note, it doesn't really have anything to do with the article, nor does it really add anything to the discussion.)
Why does Linus hate "the way GitHub does things"? Are you referring to this [1] (which, I'll note, is ambivalent on the value of GitHub as a whole, and is only negative specifically on the matter of GitHub merges?) Or is there some other argument here that we're all supposed to be familiar with?
What are these "better solutions"? Where are they? Where can I find and use them? Are they, in fact, better thought-out and more usable than GitHub? How can I test your assertions here?
We had Monotone, Darcs and others. We still have Mercurial.
They all coexisted and were being developed. Even Github wasn't a big deal in the beginning and was just one of many providers who were all bootstrapped.
However, once GitHub hit the field with $100 million in VC cash it squashed further development cold--bootstrapping and quality doesn't matter much against someone burning VC cash against you.
Distributed source control is now in a path dependent local minimum and we are stuck with git because we are stuck with GitHub--better is no longer sufficient to break the logjam.
Until Microsoft turns the screws enough this will all remain status quo.
We had better solutions, but the combination of "FREE!" and "network effects" meant that the GitHub virus won and the Git host came along for the ride.
Even Linus hates the way GitHub does things, but he can't do anything about it at this point except complain.