> I down voted because it just seems like you wanted to being up the dear GitHub.

I only brought up dear GitHub because I am sure people wouldn't have had an idea what I was talking about.

> Yes gh was stagnant but this is pretty well in the past and your points have almost no current relevance.

When my point is they used a bunch of time that other companies wouldn't give to build a solid foundation it seems very much that the past, that being the foundation, is very relevant. My entire point, is that they're in a very unique position a position that others can't really fairly expect since very few companies are able to ignore features for such a long time. This isn't to bash github. This is to put into persective what they've done and if others can do it. It removes the whole "GitHub did it so..." thing that many will suggest down the line.