If GitHub was only git, we'd be talking about Gitorious (or Gitweb, or...) having hundreds of employees, not GitHub.
I've heard people describe GitHub as the "Facebook of Open Source" and that's not as absurd a statement as it may seem at face value.
GitHub is basically the SourceForge of Web 2.0. It's where you go for open source projects and it makes it easy to participate.
I would hope to see GitLab succeed GitHub by virtue of being open source at heart (rather than just at the surface level) but as much as I love GitLab I'm not holding my breath.
Either way, git is ultimately an implementation detail to GitHub's success. Git's success may have given GitHub the edge over BitBucket (back when BitBucket was hg-only and GitHub was git-only) but it feels like the inverse is also true.
I've heard people describe GitHub as the "Facebook of Open Source" and that's not as absurd a statement as it may seem at face value.
GitHub is basically the SourceForge of Web 2.0. It's where you go for open source projects and it makes it easy to participate.
I would hope to see GitLab succeed GitHub by virtue of being open source at heart (rather than just at the surface level) but as much as I love GitLab I'm not holding my breath.
Either way, git is ultimately an implementation detail to GitHub's success. Git's success may have given GitHub the edge over BitBucket (back when BitBucket was hg-only and GitHub was git-only) but it feels like the inverse is also true.