<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/>
<title>Why Git is Better Than X</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="blueprint/screen.css" type="text/css" media="screen, projection" />
<link rel="stylesheet" href="blueprint/print.css" type="text/css" media="print" />
<!--[if IE]><link rel="stylesheet" href="blueprint/ie.css" type="text/css" media="screen, projection"><![endif]-->
<script src="http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.2.6/jquery.min.js" type="text/javascript"></script>
<style type="text/css">
html { overflow-y: scroll; }
body { margin-top: 1.5em; }
.header h1 { font-size: 3.5em; color: #666; }
.expand_collapse_links { text-align: center; margin-bottom: 1.5em; display: none; }
.expand_collapse_links a { color: #555; }
img { margin-bottom: 10px; }
.center { text-align: center; }
.text, p { font-size: 1.2em; margin-bottom: 10px; text-align: justify;}
.intro { color: #444; }
ul li { margin-top: 10px; }
.section h2 { padding-left: 5px; background-color: #eee; cursor: pointer;}
.section h2 a { color: #333; text-decoration:none; display: block; }
.section { padding-bottom: 2px; }
.contents { padding: 0 10px; width: 610px; }
.args { float:right; }
.lang { padding: 3px; font-weight: bold;}
.section .lang { font-size: 0.8em; padding: 2px; font-weight: normal;}
.svn { color: hsl(260,57%,24%); background: hsl(260,57%,83%) }
.perforce { color: hsl(0,57%,24%); background: hsl(0,57%,83%) }
.bzr { color: hsl(60,57%,24%); background: hsl(60,57%,83%) }
.hg { color: hsl(190,57%,24%); background: hsl(190,57%,83%) }
.nowrap { white-space: nowrap; }
.sweet { color: #363; background: #beb; }
.compare { color: #663; background: #eeb; }
.help pre { font-size: 12px; }
.help td { vertical-align: top; }
code { font-size: 90%; }
.footer { text-align: center; color: #663; background-color: #eea; padding: 10px;}
.footer a { color: #440; }
.footer-lang { text-align: center; color: #443; background-color: #dda; padding: 5px; font-size: 90%; }
.footer-lang a { color: #330; }
.footer-badges { text-align: center; }
.footer-badges a { color: #777; }
.lang a {color: inherit; text-decoration: none;}
.note { text-decoration: italic; color: #666; padding: 1em; }
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="container">
<div class="span-24 header">
<table width="100%">
<tr><td>
<h1>Why Git is Better than X</h1>
</td><td align="right">
<div id="menu">
<span class="lang hg">hg</span>
<span class="lang bzr">bzr</span>
<span class="lang svn">svn</span>
<span class="lang perforce">perforce</span>
</div>
<img style="float: right" alt="where "x" is one of" src="images/wherex.gif" />
</td></tr>
</table>
</div>
<div class="span-24">
<div class="text intro">
This site is here because I seem to
be spending a lot of time lately defending Gitsters against
charges of fanboyism, bandwagonism
and koolaid-thirst. So, here is why people are switching to Git from
X, and why you should too. Just click on a reason to view it.
</div>
<div class="expand_collapse_links">
<a href="#" class="expand_all">Expand all</a> |
<a href="#" class="collapse_all">Collapse all</a>
</div>
</div>
<div class="span-24 section">
<div class="args">
<span class="lang hg">hg</span>
<span class="lang bzr">bzr</span>
<span class="lang svn">svn</span>
<span class="lang perforce">perforce</span>
</div>
<h2>
<a name="cheap-local-branching" href="#cheap-local-branching">Cheap Local Branching</a>
</h2>
<div class="contents">
<div class="text">
Probably Git's most compelling feature that really makes it stand
apart from nearly every other SCM out there is its branching
model. It is completely different from all of the models I'm
comparing it to here, most of which recommend that the best branch
is basically a clone of the repository in a new directory.
</div>
<div class="text">
Git does not work like that. Git will allow you to have multiple
local branches that can be entirely independent of each other and
the creation, merging and deletion of those lines of development
take seconds.
</div>
<div class="text">
This means that you can do things like:
<ul>
<li>Create a branch to try out an idea, commit
a few times, switch back to where you branched from, apply a patch,
switch back to where you are experimenting, then merge it in.
</li>
<li>Have a branch that always contains only what goes to production,
another that you merge work into for testing and several smaller
ones for day to day work
</li>
<li>Create new branches for each new feature you're working on, so
you can seamlessly switch back and forth between them, then delete
each branch when that feature gets merged into your main line.
</li>
<li>Create a branch to experiment in, realize it's not going to
work and just delete it, abandoning the work—with nobody else
ever seeing it (even if you've pushed other branches in the meantime)
</li>
</ul>
</div>
<img src="images/branches.png" alt="branches flowchart"/>
<div class="text">
Importantly, when you push to a remote repository, you do <em>not</em>
have to push all of your branches. You can only share one of your
branches and not all of them. This tends to free people to try
new ideas without worrying about having to plan how and when they
are going to merge it in or share it with others.
</div>
<div class="text">
You <em>can</em> find ways to do some of this with other systems, but the work
involved is much more difficult and error-prone. Git makes this
process incredibly easy and it changes the way most developers
work when they learn it.
</div>
<!-- TODO : (short screencast showing the awesomeness of git branches) -->
<!-- TODO : (show tweets somehow) -->
<div class="tweets">
<img alt='jamis twitter' width="300" src="http://twictur.es/i/1022811017.gif" />
<img alt='trevorturk twitter' width="300" src="http://twictur.es/i/1022886570.gif" />
<img alt='thillerson twitter' width="300" src="http://twictur.es/i/1022842917.gif" />
<img alt='boblmartens twitter' width="300" src="http://twictur.es/i/1022818467.gif" />
<img alt='mathie twitter' width="300" src="http://twictur.es/i/1022816942.gif" />
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="span-24 section">
<div class="args">
<span class="lang svn">svn</span>
<span class="lang perforce">perforce</span>
</div>
<h2>
<a name="everything-is-local" href="#everything-is-local">Everything is Local</a>
</h2>
<div class="contents">
<div class="text">
This is basically true of all the distributed SCMs, but in my
experience even more so with Git. There is very little outside
of 'fetch', 'pull' and 'push' that communicates in any way with
anything other than your hard disk.
</div>
<div class="text">
This not only makes most operations much faster than you may
be used to, but it also allows you to work on stuff offline.
That may not sound like a big deal, but I'm always amazed at
how often I actually do work offline. Being able to branch,
merge, commit and browse history of your project while on
the plane or train is very productive.
</div>
<div class="center"><img style="width: 500px" src="images/local-remote.png" alt="local repo to remote repo flowchart" /></div>
<div class="text">
Even in Mercurial, common commands like 'incoming' and 'outgoing' hit
the server, whereas with Git you can 'fetch' all the servers data
before going offline and do comparisons, merges and logs of data
that is on the server but not in your local branches yet.
</div>
<div class="text">
This means that it's very easy to have copies of not only your
branches, but also of everyone's branches that are working with
you in your Git repository without having to mess your own stuff
up.
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="span-24 section">
<div class="args">
<span class="lang bzr">bzr</span>
<span class="lang svn">svn</span>
<span class="lang perforce">perforce</span>
</div>
<h2>
<a name="git-is-fast" href="#git-is-fast">Git is Fast</a>
</h2>
<div class="contents">
<div class="text">
Git is fast. Everyone—even most of the hard core users of these
other systems—generally give Git this title. With Git, all
operations are performed locally giving it a bit of a leg up on
SVN and Perforce, both of which require network access for certain operations.
However, even compared to the other DSCMs that also perform operations
locally, Git is pretty fast.
</div>
<div class="text">
Part of this is likely because it was built to work on the Linux
kernel, which means that it has had to deal effectively with large
repositories from day one. Additionally, Git is written in C, reducing the
overhead of runtimes associated with higher-level languages.
Another reason that Git is so fast is that the primary developers
have made this a design goal of the application.
</div>
<div class="text">
The following are a number of benchmarks that I performed on three
copies of the Django source code repository in 3 different SCMs:
Git, Mercurial and Bazaar. I also tested some of this stuff in SVN,
but trust me, it's slower—basically take the Bazaar numbers and
then add network latency...
</div>
<table>
<tr><td class="nowrap">
<img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvs&chs=100x125&chd=t:2,5,60&chds=0,60&chxt=x&chco=4d89f9&chl=git|hg|bzr&chtt=Init" alt="init benchmarks" />
<img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvs&chs=100x125&chd=t:85,3,23&chds=0,100&chxt=x&chco=4d89f9&chl=git|hg|bzr&chtt=Add" alt="add benchmarks" />
<img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvs&chs=100x125&chd=t:45,194,1474&chds=0,1474&chxt=x&chco=4d89f9&chl=git|hg|bzr&chtt=Status" alt="status benchmarks" />
<img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvs&chs=100x125&chd=t:5,21,142&chds=0,142&chxt=x&chco=4d89f9&chl=git|hg|bzr&chtt=Diff" alt="diff benchmarks" />
</td><td rowspan="2">
<img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvg&chs=190x275&chd=t:1,123,390|11,946,820&chds=0,1210&chxt=x&chco=4d89f9,c6d9fd&chl=git|hg|bzr&chtt=Branching" alt="branching benchmarks" />
</td></tr>
<tr><td class="nowrap">
<img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvs&chs=100x125&chd=t:5,120,189&chds=0,230&chxt=x&chco=4d89f9&chl=git|hg|bzr&chtt=Tag" alt="tag benchmarks" />
<img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvs&chs=100x125&chd=t:7,26,90&chds=0,90&chxt=x&chco=4d89f9&chl=git|hg|bzr&chtt=Log" alt="log benchmarks" />
<img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvs&chs=100x125&chd=t:124,125,230&chds=0,230&chxt=x&chco=4d89f9&chl=git|hg|bzr&chtt=Commit+(Lg)" alt="large commit benchmarks" />
<img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvs&chs=100x125&chd=t:8,51,113&chds=0,113&chxt=x&chco=4d89f9&chl=git|hg|bzr&chtt=Commit+(Sm)" alt="small commit benchmarks" />
</td></tr>
</table>
<div class="text">
The end result was that for everything but adding new files, Git
was fastest. (Also really large commits, which Hg was basically the
same at, but the commit I tested was so large that you're unlikely
to ever do anything like it—normal commits are much faster in Git.)
</div>
<table>
<tr>
<th></th>
<th>Git</th>
<th>Hg</th>
<th>Bzr</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Init</th>
<td class="sweet">0.024s</td>
<td>0.059s</td>
<td>0.600s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Add</th>
<td>8.535s</td>
<td class="sweet">0.368s</td>
<td>2.381s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Status</th>
<td class="sweet">0.451s</td>
<td>1.946s</td>
<td>14.744s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Diff</th>
<td class="sweet">0.543s</td>
<td>2.189s</td>
<td>14.248s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Tag</th>
<td class="sweet">0.056s</td>
<td>1.201s</td>
<td>1.892s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Log</th>
<td class="sweet">0.711s</td>
<td>2.650s</td>
<td>9.055s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Commit (Large)</th>
<td class="sweet">12.480s</td>
<td>12.500s</td>
<td>23.002s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Commit (Small)</th>
<td class="sweet">0.086s</td>
<td>0.517s</td>
<td>1.139s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Branch (Cold)</th>
<td class="sweet">1.161s</td>
<td>94.681s</td>
<td>82.249s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Branch (Hot)</th>
<td class="sweet">0.070s</td>
<td>12.300s</td>
<td>39.411s</td>
</tr>
</table>
<div class="text">
The cold and hot branching numbers are the numbers for the first
and second times that I branched a repo—the second number being
a branch with a hot disk cache.
</div>
<div class="text">
It should be noted that although the 'add' numbers are much slower,
this was for a massive add operation—over 2000 files. For the
majority of what most people do on a daily basis, add ops in any
of these systems will only take a fraction of a second. All of the
other ops tested here (except for the large commit, possibly) are
more indicative of things you might actually do day to day.
</div>
<div class="text">
These numbers are really not difficult to recreate, simply clone the Django
project in each of the systems and try out the same commands in each.
<ul>
<li><code>git clone git://github.com/brosner/django.git dj-git</code></li>
<li><code>hg clone http://hg.dpaste.com/django/trunk dj-hg</code></li>
<li><code>bzr branch lp:django dj-bzr</code></li>
<li><code>svn checkout http://code.djangoproject.com/svn/django/trunk dj-svn</code></li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="span-24 section">
<div class="args">
<span class="lang svn">svn</span>
</div>
<h2>
<a name="git-is-small" href="#git-is-small">Git is Small</a>
</h2>
<div class="contents">
<div class="text">
Git is really good at conserving disk space. Your Git directory will
(in general) barely be larger than an SVN checkout—in some cases
actually smaller (apparently a lot can go in those .svn dirs).
</div>
<div class="text">
The following numbers were taken from clones of the Django project
in each of its semi-official Git mirrors at the same point in
its history.
</div>
<table>
<tr>
<th></th>
<th>Git</th>
<th>Hg</th>
<th>Bzr</th>
<th>SVN</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Repo Alone</td>
<td class="sweet">24M</td>
<td>34M</td>
<td>45M</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Entire Directory</td>
<td class="compare">43M</td>
<td>53M</td>
<td>64M</td>
<td class="compare">61M</td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
</div>
<div class="span-24 section">
<div class="args">
<span class="lang hg">hg</span>
<span class="lang bzr">bzr</span>
<span class="lang svn">svn</span>
<span class="lang perforce">perforce</span>
</div>
<h2>
<a name="the-staging-area" href="#the-staging-area">The Staging Area</a>
</h2>
<div class="contents">
<div class="text">
Unlike the other systems, Git has what it calls the "staging area"
or "index". This is an intermediate area that you can setup what
you want your commit to look like before you commit it.
</div>
<div class="text">
The cool thing about the staging area, and what sets Git apart
from all these other tools, is that you can easily stage some of
your files as you finish them and then commit them without committing
all the modified files in your working directory, or having to list
them on the command line during the commit
</div>
<div class="center"><img src="images/index1.png" alt="add commit workflow diagram" /></div>
<div class="text">
This also allows you to stage only portions of a modified file. Gone are
the days of making two logically unrelated modifications to a file before
you realized that you forgot to commit one of them. Now you can just stage
the change you need for the current commit and stage the other change for
the next commit. This feature scales up to as many different changes to
your file as you need.
</div>
<div class="text">
Of course, Git also makes it pretty easy to ignore this feature
if you don't want that kind of control—just slap a '-a' to your
commit command in order to add all changes to all files to the staging area.
</div>
<div class="center"><img src="images/index2.png" alt="commit only workflow diagram" /></div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="span-24 section">
<div class="args">
<span class="lang svn">svn</span>
<span class="lang perforce">perforce</span>
</div>
<h2>
<a name="distributed" href="#distributed">Distributed</a>
</h2>
<div class="contents">
<div class="text">
One of the coolest features of any of the Distributed SCMs, Git included, is that it's
distributed. This means that instead of doing a "checkout" of the current tip of
the source code, you do a "clone" of the entire repository.
</div>
<div class="text">
This means that even
if you're using a centralized workflow, every user has what is essentially a full
backup of the main server, each of which could be pushed up to replace the main server
in the event of a crash or corruption. There is basically no single point of failure
with Git unless there is only a single point.
</div>
<div class="text">
This does not slow things down much, either. On average, an SVN checkout is only marginally
faster than any of the DSCMs. Of the DSCMs I tested, Git was the fastest.
</div>
<table>
<tr><td>
<img src="http://chart.apis.google.com/chart?cht=bvs&chs=200x150&chd=t:120,144,311,64&chds=0,320&chco=4d89f9&chl=git|hg|bzr|svn&chtt=Clone" alt="cloning benchmarks" />
</td><td style="width: 80%">
<table>
<tr>
<th>Git</th>
<td class="sweet">1m 59s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Hg</th>
<td>2m 24s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>Bzr</th>
<td>5m 11s</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th>SVN</th>
<td>1m 4s</td>
</tr>
</table>
</td></tr>
</table>
</div>
</div>
<div class="span-24 section">
<div class="args">
<span class="lang svn">svn</span>
<span class="lang perforce">perforce</span>
</div>
<h2>
<a name="any-workflow" href="#any-workflow">Any Workflow</a>
</h2>
<div class="contents">
<div class="text">
One of the amazing things about Git is that because of its distributed
nature and super branching system, you can easily implement pretty
much any workflow you can think of relatively easily.
</div>
<h3>Subversion-Style Workflow</h3>
<div class="text">
A very common Git workflow, especially from people transitioning
from a centralized system, is a centralized workflow. Git will
not allow you to push if someone has pushed since the last time
you fetched, so a centralized model where all developers push to
the same server works just fine.
</div>
<div class="center"><img src="images/workflow-a.png" alt="subversion-style workflow" /></div><br/>
<h3>Integration Manager Workflow</h3>
<div class="text">
Another common Git workflow is where there is an integration
manager—a single person who commits to the 'blessed' repository,
and then a number of developers who clone from that repository,
push to their own independent repositories and ask the integrator
to pull in their changes. This is the type of development model
you often see with open source or GitHub repositories.
</div>
<div class="center"><img src="images/workflow-b.png" alt="integration manager workflow" /></div><br/>
<h3>Dictator and Lieutenants Workflow</h3>
<div class="text">
For more massive projects, you can setup your developers similar to
the way the Linux kernel is run, where people are in charge of a
specific subsystem of the project ('lieutenants') and merge in all
changes that have to do with that subsystem. Then another integrator
(the 'dictator') can pull changes from only his/her lieutenants and
push those to the 'blessed' repository that everyone then clones from
again.
</div>
<div class="center"><img src="images/workflow-c.png" alt="dictator and lieutenants workflow" /></div><br/>
<div class="text">
Again, Git is entirely flexible about this, so you can mix and
match and choose the workflow that is right for you.
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="span-24 section">
<div class="args">
<span class="lang hg">hg</span>
<span class="lang svn">svn</span>
<span class="lang perforce">perforce</span>
</div>
<h2>
<a name="github" href="#github">GitHub</a>
</h2>
<div class="contents">
<img style="float:right; padding:10px" src="images/octocat.png" alt="octocat" />
<div class="text">
I <em>may</em> be biased here, given that I work for
<a href="http://github.com">GitHub</a>,
but I added this section anyway because so many people say that
GitHub itself was specifically why they chose Git.
</div>
<div class="text">
GitHub is a reason to use Git for many people because it is more
like a social network for code than a simple hosting site. People
find other developers or projects that are similar to the things
they are doing, and can easily fork and contribute, creating a very
vibrant community around Git and the projects that people use it
for.
</div>
<div class="text">
There exist other services, both for Git and for the other SCMs,
but few are user-oriented or socially
targeted, and none have anywhere near the user-base.
This social aspect of GitHub is killer, and this in combination of the above features
make working with Git and GitHub a great combination for rapidly
developing open source projects.
</div>
<div class="text">
This type of community is simply not available with any of the other SCMs.
</div>
</div>
</div>
<!--
OTHER IDEAS:
* easy merging
* easy server setup
* non destructive
-->
<!-- GIT MYTHS -->
<div class="span-24 section">
<div class="args">
<span class="lang perforce">perforce</span>
</div>
<h2>
<a name="easy-to-learn" href="#easy-to-learn">Easy to Learn</a>
</h2>
<div class="contents">
<div class="text">
This did not used to be true—early in Git's life, it was not really
an SCM so much as a bunch of tools that let you do versioned filesystem
work in a distributed manner. However, today, the command set and
learning curve of Git are pretty similar to any other SCM, and even
better than some.
</div>
<div class="text">
Since this is difficult to prove objectively without some sort of
study, I'll just show the difference between the default 'help' menu for the
Mercurial and Git commands. I've highlighted the commands that are
identical (or nearly) between the two systems. (In Hg, if you type 'hg help', you
get a list of 40-some commands.)
</div>
<table class="help">
<tr><td valign="top">
<h3>Mercurial Help</h3>
<pre>
<span class="compare">add</span> add the specified files ...
<span class="compare">annotate</span> show changeset informati...
<span class="compare">clone</span> make a copy of an existi...
<span class="compare">commit</span> commit the specified fil...
<span class="compare">diff</span> diff repository (or sele...
export dump the header and diff...
<span class="compare">init</span> create a new repository ...
<span class="compare">log</span> show revision history of...
<span class="compare">merge</span> merge working directory ...
parents show the parents of the ...
<span class="compare">pull</span> pull changes from the sp...
<span class="compare">push</span> push changes to the spec...
<span class="compare">remove</span> remove the specified fil...
serve export the repository vi...
<span class="compare">status</span> show changed files in th...
update update working directory
</pre>
</td><td valign="top">
<h3>Git Help</h3>
<pre>
<span class="compare">add</span> Add file contents to the index
<span class="compare">bisect</span> Find the change that introduce...
<span class="compare">branch</span> List, create, or delete branches
checkout Checkout a branch or paths to ...
<span class="compare">clone</span> Clone a repository into a new ...
<span class="compare">commit</span> Record changes to the repository
<span class="compare">diff</span> Show changes between commits, ...
fetch Download objects and refs from...
grep Print lines matching a pattern
<span class="compare">init</span> Create an empty git repository
<span class="compare">log</span> Show commit logs
<span class="compare">merge</span> Join two or more development h...
mv Move or rename a file, a direc...
<span class="compare">pull</span> Fetch from and merge with anot...
<span class="compare">push</span> Update remote refs along with ...
rebase Forward-port local commits to ...
reset Reset current HEAD to the spec...
<span class="compare">rm</span> Remove files from the working ...
show Show various types of objects
<span class="compare">status</span> Show the working tree status
<span class="compare">tag</span> Create, list, delete or verify...
</pre>
</td></tr>
</table>
<div class="text">
Prior to Git 1.6, all of the Git commands used to be in the executable
path, which was very confusing to people. Although Git still recognizes
all of those commands, the only command in the path is now 'git'.
So, if you look at Mercurial and Git, Git has a nearly identical
command set and help system—there is very little difference from
a beginning UI perspective today.
</div>
<div class="text">
These days it's pretty hard to argue that Mercurial or Bazaar is any
easier to learn than Git is.
</div>
</div>
</div>
<!--
THINGS GIT IS STILL NOT GOOD AT
* windows (all)
* large files (svn)
-->
<div class="span-24">
<div class="expand_collapse_links">
<a href="#" class="expand_all">Expand all</a> |
<a href="#" class="collapse_all">Collapse all</a>
</div>
</div>
<div class="span-24 footer">
This site is built and maintained by <a href="http://github.com/schacon">Scott Chacon</a>, a
<a href="http://github.com">GitHubber</a>.<br />
If you disagree with anything on the site and you have a good reason, please
<a href="mailto:schacon@gmail.com">email me</a> so I can fix it.<br />
The source for this site is <a href="http://github.com/schacon/whygitisbetter">on GitHub</a>—feel
free to send patches if you want to improve it. <br/>
</div>
<div class="span-24 footer-lang">
Also in :
<a href="http://de.whygitisbetterthanx.com">German</a>,
<a href="http://es.whygitisbetterthanx.com">Spanish</a>,
<a href="http://fr.whygitisbetterthanx.com">French</a>,
<a href="http://it.whygitisbetterthanx.com">Italian</a>,
<a href="http://lol.whygitisbetterthanx.com">Lolcat</a>,
<a href="http://nl.whygitisbetterthanx.com">Dutch</a>,
<a href="http://no.whygitisbetterthanx.com">Norwegian</a>,
<a href="http://pt.whygitisbetterthanx.com">Portuguese</a>,
<a href="http://sv.whygitisbetterthanx.com">Swedish</a>,
<a href="http://zh-cn.whygitisbetterthanx.com">Simplified</a> and
<a href="http://zh-tw.whygitisbetterthanx.com">Traditional Chinese</a>
</div>
<div class="span-24 footer-badges">
<a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=referer">Valid XHTML</a>
</div>
</div>
<script type="text/javascript">
$(function() {
$('.section .contents').hide()
$('.contents .tweets').hide()
$('.expand_collapse_links').show()
$('.expand_collapse_links .expand_all').click(function() {
$('.section .contents').show()
})
$('.expand_collapse_links .collapse_all').click(function() {
$('.section .contents').hide()
})
$('.section h2').click(function() {
var hidden = $(this).next().is(':hidden')
$(this).next().slideToggle()
return hidden
})
$('#menu span').css('cursor', 'pointer').click(function() {
$('.section .contents').hide()
showSectionsForSCM(this.innerHTML)
document.location.hash = this.innerHTML
})
if (document.location.hash) {
var anchor = document.location.hash.substring(1)
$('.section h2 a[name=' + anchor + ']').parent('h2').click()
showSectionsForSCM(anchor)
}
function showSectionsForSCM(scm) {
$('.section .' + scm).parents('.section').find('.contents').show()
}
})
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
var gaJsHost = (("https:" == document.location.protocol) ? "https://ssl." : "http://www.");
document.write(unescape("%3Cscript src='" + gaJsHost + "google-analytics.com/ga.js' type='text/javascript'%3E%3C/script%3E"));
</script>
<script type="text/javascript">
try {
var pageTracker = _gat._getTracker("UA-82337-13");
pageTracker._trackPageview();
} catch(err) {}</script>
</body>
</html>
) is private.
