@blacklight
> Ugly interfaces that were just thin layers above the code

thin layers of code are good and if i buy a tool i go by use not looks.

> barely any README (let alone wikis, or any form of easily accessible and structured documentation),

i think i found everything i need in the sourcehut wiki

> How are we supposed to build the foundations of tomorrow's FLOSS if we use tools that look even more outdated than Craigslist?

if "tomorrows floss" means "blindly imitating ideas of big tech" then it's exactly what i don't want to do.

> How are we supposed to have any credibility when we tell people "stop using Github, try Sourcehut instead"?

if setting up the mail workflow is too much for people, maybe being a developer isn't for them.

> How do we expect to create user engagement?

by building functionally better tools, not by looking better. looking better is a fight that can't be won.

> How do we expect somebody who's not a developer to use software that doesn't even come with an easily accessible documentation?

i don't see what isn't easily accessible here: https://man.sr.ht/

also you are missing one point with sourcehut: drew started as single person. the success of sourcehut gave me hope that a single person can still do relevant work. additionaly drew is a big proponent of free software as in . i think that the whole rebranding as "open source" is part of a push by big tech for people to use permissive licensing, as part of an EEE strategy. sourcehut is AGPL which is the exact opposite of this trend.