Part of the predicate for forks being so disruptive was the idea that there is One True Version — a creation, like a piece of software, a written work, or anything else, that can only be accurately represented by a single ideal expression.
Besides differing ideologies, I think part of the reason that forking was socially stigmatized was that splitting the community often meant that a project went from critical mass to two projects that were both sub-critical. It forced developers to choose one or the other.
Git is also very strong with the other half of the forking process: the merge. Forked projects like Firefox rarely merged back. I feel like this is an important point that was missed by the article.
Besides differing ideologies, I think part of the reason that forking was socially stigmatized was that splitting the community often meant that a project went from critical mass to two projects that were both sub-critical. It forced developers to choose one or the other.
Git is also very strong with the other half of the forking process: the merge. Forked projects like Firefox rarely merged back. I feel like this is an important point that was missed by the article.