I just looked it up on the web. It's a no-go because:

1. Only the trial version is free. With more than 5 users, it cost money.
2. The code is private, there do not seem to be a way to share it

It's not the same service. I would maybe consider it for proprietary software but it does not replace SF.net or Github.

Not sure they can. I don't think Github get to decide what license to apply to the code they host. The code belongs to the author until he grants Github a license. If the user doesn't do it explicitly, I'm afraid Github is distributing the code illegally. I don't think Github is allowed to add a public domain license file by default.

I'm using SourceForge.net and am happy with it, although there are some minor things I don't like about it: heavy use of JavaScript, the web layout is weak (size set in pixels, no attention made to accessibility, etc...) but overall I didn't find anything better short of hosting myself. I considered Google code, Launchpad, Savannah and Github and found SF.net to be the most complete and advanced source hosting service. I found some advantages in using Google code, Launchpad and Savannah. I'm using Launchpad for translations, since it's the only one that does it. Launchpad is nice because it can sync with an external SCM like SF.net. I found Google code to be less featured but I like the clean layout and overall site performance. Savannah is poorly featured too but does not have advert and is very clean. I found Github to be like SF.net, with the same weak points but less featured. I'm curious to know why people would use Github. Is there any advantage over SF.net?

Before that there was RiscOS, AmigaOS, AmiDOCK, Directory Opus, CDE, ...

Because you think menus and overlapping windows come from Win95? Win95 is nothing special. it just uses the same interface all other desktop computers with a mouse and a keyboard use.

Nope. My gf hates it, my mother hates it too. Nothing is discoverable. People like to be told what they can do with the computer. Typing things on the keyboard or reading documentation is for geeks.

You are doing correctly. It's just that the step of hashing is unnecessary. You can just compile the stuff and compare it, instead of compiling the stuff, hashing both stuffs and compare the hashes.

You can do that with cmp or diff. Why do you mention hashing?

I can name so many of them that it's hard to choose. Let's just pick the best one: Amiga OS workbench. But that is only one example, there are so many that I can't list them. Windows 95 was not exactly a revolution in 95.

Funny how the kids think the menus comes from windows 95 these days.

That's because you don't have a graphic card powerful enough for the shell. It falls back to the usable interface if it can't display the unusable one. I experienced the same. I liked GNOME 3 on a slow computer and tried to install it on the powerful one and that was a disaster. Only the fall back mode is usable. The real shell is not.

GNU carries a philosophy and Linux does not. I want to promote the philosophy and therefore I call it GNU. Technically, Linux is not better than NT or Mach. I have no reason to promote Linux on a technical level. I call it GNU to promote free software. Linux is important because of the GPL. The real value is in the philosophy.

Xorg can not compile itself because it's a graphical interface. XFCE can not compile itself because it's a desktop environment. Linux can not compile itself because it's a kernel. GNU can compile itself because it's an OS. Debian can compile itself because it's an OS. Call it GNU or Debian.

They do that?
What's news is that someone in the government has just learned what everybody knows. Wake me up when they do something about it.

That's correct, but even split that money is still in the hand of a few. It's not a king but a small class of oligarchs that collectively is richer and richer.