> Because: It isn't really about Git anymore. GitHub used to be a Git repository hosting company. But now, they are about providing other software development and management infrastructure that augments the version control. They might as well change their name to Hub at this point.

I agree fully, but the one "feature" missing from drh's analysis is GitHub's social aspect. Getting code out in front of people and allowing them to interact with it (directly, via commits and PRs, or indirectly, via issue comments) as a feature of a social network is their differentiator.

GitHub's choice of git wasn't germane to building a social network: GitHub could have been successful using svn, excepting that git was ascendant at the time.

Fossil's feature of an integrated web server is an anti-feature to GitHub; it defeats the purpose of having a centralised "Hub."