Even though I appreciate the apology, I think the original post that he wrote did bring up some decent points, especially with regards to the features and community aspects of the two sites. Note, of course, that I prefer Git over Hg, grain of salt, etc:
I see the "GitHub vs. BitBucket" debate brought up most often in the context of users new to the DVCS concept, who have not yet investigated or chosen a favorite between the two. In this context, the fact that GitHub's community is far larger is a valid point and benefit, and a big draw for new users. The same goes for the better fork-related features.
I honestly think that because the two look and function quite similarly, the details are really what are important when trying to decide which tool you want to spend your time with. Setting aside the fanboy arguments relating to Git and Hg themselves, I think that GitHub makes for a very compelling reason to choose Git over Hg/BitBucket, simply because it has the "better" community and features.
Now, perhaps if schacon had made his argument in this fashion, rather than the screen-by-screen accusations, no apology would have been necessary? But I'm not very good at making arguments; I always did very poorly when trying to write argument essays in high school...
One lame excuse laden rant by an author too insecure to let people post detracting comments (Hi Armin - love the selective deletion). Bitbucket copied GitHub. Copying external structure is flattery. Can we all move on?
