Skip to main content
Software Engineering

Return to Question

Question Protected by gnat
Post Closed as "not constructive" by user8
Post Made Community Wiki by R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE
Tweeted twitter.com/#!/StackProgrammer/status/96876387318771712
added 6 characters in body
Source Link
dagnelies
dagnelies
  • 5.5k
  • 3
  • 22
  • 27

In the recent years, the hype around Git raised greatly. Everybody knows about Git, nobody knows about othersalternatives.

Other ones like Mercurial seem to be unnoticed. Both have been released in 2005, and provide similar featuresfunctionalities. Moreover, Mercurial is generally considered to be easier to use, more intuitive and had for a long time better UIs. Therefore, it could be assumed that this would be a popular alternative, especially for those new to distributed version-control. Yet, it seems unknown byto most people, unlike Git which succeeded pretty well.

So, howThe point of this post is to try to understand this phenomenon better.

How comes Git gets all part of the cake? Did they somehow use better marketing? Is it because its community is more ...ahem ..."verbose"? Is it because of the "Linus" name? Is it because of its geeky image?

What's your opinion?

In the recent years, the hype around Git raised greatly. Everybody knows about Git, nobody knows about others.

Other ones like Mercurial seem to be unnoticed. Both have been released in 2005, and provide similar features. Moreover, Mercurial is generally considered to be easier to use, more intuitive and had for a long time better UIs. Therefore, it could be assumed that this would be a popular alternative, especially for those new to distributed version-control. Yet, it seems unknown by most people, unlike Git which succeeded pretty well.

So, how comes Git gets all part of the cake? Did they somehow use better marketing? Is it because its community is more ...ahem ..."verbose"? Is it because of the "Linus" name? Is it because of its geeky image?

What's your opinion?

In the recent years, the hype around Git raised greatly. Everybody knows about Git, nobody knows about alternatives.

Other ones like Mercurial seem to be unnoticed. Both have been released in 2005, and provide similar functionalities. Moreover, Mercurial is generally considered to be easier to use, more intuitive and had for a long time better UIs. Therefore, it could be assumed that this would be a popular alternative, especially for those new to distributed version-control. Yet, it seems unknown to most people, unlike Git which succeeded pretty well.

The point of this post is to try to understand this phenomenon better.

How comes Git gets all part of the cake? Did they somehow use better marketing? Is it because its community is more ...ahem ..."verbose"? Is it because of the "Linus" name? Is it because of its geeky image?

What's your opinion?

Source Link
dagnelies
dagnelies
  • 5.5k
  • 3
  • 22
  • 27

Why did Git get so much hype? ...while others don't?

In the recent years, the hype around Git raised greatly. Everybody knows about Git, nobody knows about others.

Other ones like Mercurial seem to be unnoticed. Both have been released in 2005, and provide similar features. Moreover, Mercurial is generally considered to be easier to use, more intuitive and had for a long time better UIs. Therefore, it could be assumed that this would be a popular alternative, especially for those new to distributed version-control. Yet, it seems unknown by most people, unlike Git which succeeded pretty well.

So, how comes Git gets all part of the cake? Did they somehow use better marketing? Is it because its community is more ...ahem ..."verbose"? Is it because of the "Linus" name? Is it because of its geeky image?

What's your opinion?