Unlike SourceForge, Savannah's focus is for hosting free software projects and has very strict hosting policies, including a ban against the use of non-free formats (such as Macromedia Flash) to ensure that only free software is hosted.
Knitter {l Wrote}:So now it is a race between Github, Bitbucket or Gitorious.
Knitter {l Wrote}:I know about the wikipedia's links , just wanted to read some user opinions
At this point, GitHub offers a very good service, though I would prefer a free platform and except for bitbucket, most of the others offer tools that I don't want to use (Bazaar, CVS, SVN), outdated or limited versions of a platform (the old sourceforce platform code or one of the ports like GForge) or don't offer enough tools for what I want (no bug tracker, not file hosting). I also don't want to host anything in any of my own servers as I know that I might not be able to maintain them due to the costs involved.
So now it is a race between Github, Bitbucket or Gitorious.
Evropi {l Wrote}:Just wondering, why did you cross out GitLab.com from the list?
Evropi {l Wrote}:Also, I don't believe having "tools you don't want to use" reduces the potency of a platform.
Evropi {l Wrote}:Additionally, FusionForge is a GForge fork, not the other way around.
Evropi {l Wrote}:From my point of view, the only really competitive all-FOSS service (both Atlassian and GitHub Inc release lots of code as FOSS mind you) is GitLab.com. Please do not dismiss it so easily! It really is worth a look and it will only get better going forward. CodePlex is good too, supports file hosting for one.
jcantero {l Wrote}:They are not exclusive. You can use the three as a copy/backup of your local git repository. That's one of the advantages for using a DVCS.
Julius {l Wrote}:http://www.gluster.org/2013/08/how-far-the-once-mighty-sourceforge-has-fallen/
I thought it was just people complaining, but this is pretty serious if true.
Julius {l Wrote}:http://www.gluster.org/2013/08/how-far-the-once-mighty-sourceforge-has-fallen/
I thought it was just people complaining, but this is pretty serious if true.
The article gets a few things very wrong. First off, there are no drive-by installers. It's an offer-based installer. Meaning that when you run it, you get a single offer of an additional product. Second, it's offering you either trialware (a trial version of a for-sale product that they hope you buy after trying) or adware (like an Ask.com toolbar to ad to your browser). The author of this blog post is either outright lying about it doing drive-by-installers and malware or is clueless about what the terminology actually means.
The last time this was posted on HN, I did a quick writeup on my understanding of it (reposted here):
"For the curious, this is an optional program at SourceForge being offered to developers as a way to monetize their work. The developer needs to specifically request it. SourceForge gets a cut, so does the developer. The installer is their first stab at this process and is using the bundling technology from Ask.com. As offer-based installers go, this one is about as good as it gets. It makes a single offer and has an Accept and Decline button with the user selecting whichever one they want (not a pre-checked box accepting the offer above a Next/Continue button). If accepted, the installer installs the offered software and it gets a standard entry in Windows' Add/Remove Programs that works as expected. If declined, the installer continues. The installer then downloads the originally-requested software.
The two issues with the current installer are that (1) it is served in place of the requested file with no indication that a substitution is made as the user downloads and (2) it requests admin rights before it starts downloading the software, which can be a security issue. Roberto (who posted the article) has stated that they are working on #1 in terms of the text shown on SourceForge as you select to download and download. As for #2, there may be some ways to rework the installer so this is not an issue. I'll mention it to him when I speak to him.
SourceForge has one other revenue-share program with developers where you place the SourceForge-branded download buttons on your own website that link to your downloads on SourceForge and you get a small cut of the ad revenue made from the download page.
If I recall correctly, SourceForge has been losing money for a few years now. Dice Holdings picked up SourceForge and Slashdot while Geek.com kept ThinkGeek.com, so they are now separate entities. These new experiments are attempts to get SourceForge to be self-sustaining/profitable. Ad revenue alone likely won't cut it.
Unfortunately, Google Code, Github and others don't offer the full breadth of services that SourceForge does for open source projects. Google Code, Github, and others have all ditched binary downloads, so SourceForge is one of the only providers to make binary downloads available to Windows and Mac user at no charge. This is why SourceForge is popular for real apps (FileZilla, Pidgin, PortableApps.com, etc) and Github is popular for components (node.js, jquery, rails, etc). The code zips available at other providers are of no use to end users.
As full disclosure, I run PortableApps.com, one of SourceForge's largest projects pushing quite a few TBs of downloads through their mirror network. We make use of the SF-branded download buttons revenue share program but do not make use of nor have any plans to use the "enhanced" installers. Everything I've discussed here is already publicly available, I just thought it would be handy to have in one place."
After that post, it was pointed out to me that Github has added in the ability to host binaries, but I would wager they wouldn't take kindly to the kind of bandwidth that the major SF projects like PortableApps.com push through. I've also been in touch with Roberto who made the mentioned post on SourceForge about some suggestions and options including doing an open source installer that the end-user/sysadmin can verify before installing instead of it being a downloader installer with the offer built in but not the app you want.
charlie {l Wrote}:I think this article is borderline trolling. (No borderline about it. "The developer needs to specifically request it.")
amuzen {l Wrote}:charlie {l Wrote}:I think this article is borderline trolling. (No borderline about it. "The developer needs to specifically request it.")
I'm pretty sure that the author of the article knew from the beginning that it's an opt-in feature (since he used the word bribe), but it probably isn't the point he's trying to make. It probably isn't the point either that the side-loading software is generally crap. Rather, I think that the actual points he's making are these:
- Closed source software should not be promoted.
- Open source software should not be monetized (or services provided that help doing it).
- Criticizing SourceForce is trendy.
In my opinion, the biggest losers in this affair are actually people who were looking for ways to fund development. This would have actually been one of the few models that could have worked in practice if it weren't for the backlash. Too bad since it isn't particularly intrusive compared to other monetizing methods and Windows users are likely used to skipping the offers already since they're pretty common around there.
Evropi {l Wrote}:I disagree, NaN. First, Windows has some 90% of the market, and I doubt they are largely noobs. Even noobs know how to read and know that an ad is an ad. So yeah, they will very often skip the adware. If they don't though, at least some coins will end up in your pocket.
Secondly, from anecdotal evidence... I used SourceForge as an alternative to Download.com to find new software for years. This was long before I knew what free/open source software even was. The 'reputation' you speak of is unknown to a lot of people outside IT.
Download.com had just made it harder to find freeware (no charge) so I went to another site that had lots of software you can download all for free. So your second argument does not hold water from my experience. It's all a question of money. That's why SourceForge became a popular method of distribution in the first place.
Evropi {l Wrote}:I disagree, NaN. First, Windows has some 90% of the market, and I doubt they are largely noobs. Even noobs know how to read and know that an ad is an ad. So yeah, they will very often skip the adware.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest