Isn't it more Pijul vs Git than Git_hub_? There's a massive git community/ecosystem that has nothing to do with Github (e.g. Linux kernel development, at least last I looked).
I've dropped off Github for personal projects since it's trivial to run my own git repo and git version control is built into _everything_ by default, but there are definitely annoyances I've encountered while using git that sound like they would be non-issues in Pijul, so on that level it piques my interest. On the other hand, I would want to be able to do two things before I'd seriously consider switching:
1. Self-host Pijul repos with some web interface similar to e.g. Forgejo/Gitea/Gitlab/etc (i.e. not just source control, but also a bit of project management and CI). Looks like Pijul is developed on something called "The Nest" which looks basically close enough, but the source code for that isn't public yet.
2. Install a plugin in an IDE that would let me leverage it inside the UI (with in-IDE conflict resolution)
Testing Git vs Pijul is hard unless you have other people to work with. I've wanted to use Pijul and other VCS tooling for ages, but it's pointless unless I can try with other contributers. So the hub does matter
Nothing except their own arrogance. See svnhub.com. It was registered by github to block potential competition long before SVN support on github became available.
Preventing some other party from riding on the coattails of your trademark is reasonable behavior as far as I'm concerned. This doesn't prevent anyone from offering an SVN host, just from stealing free publicity from GitHub in the process. That isn't arrogant at all.
I've tried that link on three browsers (Safari, Firefox, Brave) and there's no contents at any of them.
Nevertheless, I'll assume you're not playing some weird game, and that git is trademarked, in which case I stand corrected. It's therefore safe to assume that GitHub and GitLab are allowed to use git in their trade names, according to the holder of the trademark. Unlike a notional "SVNHub", the trademark violation in those two names is quite clear, so they either have explicit permission and pay a license, or Linus (presumably) is ok with their existence.
I'm sorry that the link seems to have expired. It would show that the trademark is held by Software Freedom Conservatory Inc.
I invite you to repeat my search. Unfortunately, the USPTO trademark database search interface is not bery intuitive, so be prepared for some trial and error if you do.
Github also managed to succeed through being a kind of social network (think "stars").
If you care about Github's dominance being an issue, walk the walk : refuse to do bug reports through it, publicly shame people and companies that use it or advertise it.
If I care about one thing, I should "shame" others who do not care about it? It feels like your comment escalates things up too quickly. Could it be that you wanted to expand your thoughts in between and didn't have the time or just forgot?
> I use Github and I bet 99% of coders here do too.
I know plenty of people & projects using Gitlab and Sourcehut (myself).
> If someone tries to publicly shame me, I'll just laugh at them.
Shaming may be wrong. You must have pretty good job security/wealth/influence to refuse Github because this can lose you many opportunities in the industry.
But that doesn't make it good, only understandable & honestly sad
I'd love to see it get 1% of the investment Github gets...