> even though git has bigger mindshare due to GitHub.
This is, as far as I can tell from my memory, ahistorical. While git was still young in 2008, it was already quite dominant.
The Linux's choice was hugely influential, and Linus' "angry and confident" style of advocacy has always been (regretfully) effective when used against software people. Git stole the mind share _very_ quickly, and by the time Github became a thing I remember almost everyone _wanting_ to be on Git. Hg and Bazaar were clear contrarians, even if I personally might have liked Hg.
I'm fairly sure that Github is "Git"hub due to Git's popularity, not the other way around.
Github is github because the team behind it had drunk the koolaid. They are responsible for passive-agressive marketing crap like this: https://svnhub.com This shows that they never had any intention to promote any other version control system.
Linus' marketing is a footnote compared to git's main feature for commercial software vendors: it's abysmal design flaws and utterly obtuse UI. That makes it incredibly easy to earn money by tacking on stuff that makes that abomination actually usable. I'd wager that github's success is built on that.
This is, as far as I can tell from my memory, ahistorical. While git was still young in 2008, it was already quite dominant.
The Linux's choice was hugely influential, and Linus' "angry and confident" style of advocacy has always been (regretfully) effective when used against software people. Git stole the mind share _very_ quickly, and by the time Github became a thing I remember almost everyone _wanting_ to be on Git. Hg and Bazaar were clear contrarians, even if I personally might have liked Hg.
I'm fairly sure that Github is "Git"hub due to Git's popularity, not the other way around.