Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

SourceForge's GitHub Importer

sourceforge.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: SourceForge's GitHub Importer

#21

Post by textmode »

As a consumer of source code, I do not use a graphical web browser to search and download from Sourceforge. A relatively simple http/https client will do. (Occasionally I have used cvs or svn if that is the only access.)

Despite any changes in Sourceforge's ownership/management, I have not experienced any problems retrieving source code. I have not tried to use a graphical browser on Sourceforge since the 1990's. No need.

As an end user of source code, I access Github the same way, without graphics. I do not need to use a web browser or any git executable to fetch a .zip or .tar.gz archive. Will this sort of easy access continue under the new management? I guess time will tell.

Sourceforge still hosts a substantial quantity of what I consider educational/useful software. Of course, Github hosts exponentially more.

Out of curiousity, using archived Github data, I am making a list of Github users and will be monitoring changes as the acquisition progresses. Will they lose many users? Where will the users who leave put their code?

I am debating whether to also construct CSV files with repo names and descriptions for a personal Github database to aid in software discovery. I expect it might not be as easy to compile such a database in the future. I could be wrong, but it is impossible to predict what will happen. Time will tell.

Re: SourceForge's GitHub Importer

#22

Post by exikyut »

jimrandomh wrote: post #3
throwaway2016a wrote: post #2

Does anyone still use SourceForge after they started embedding adware with their download links? I give them credit for being an early innovator and I know they are under new management as of 2016 and supposedly put that behind them[1] but they have permanently lost my trust. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/under...

It's actually worse than that. As an open-source developer deciding where to host a project, I not only need to trust the host, I also need to expect users to also trust the host. If I expect 10% of potential users to bounce when they see that it's hosted on Sourceforge, well, hosting is enough of a commodity that I have no reason to give up on that 10%.

I think you've unpacked why SF is - sadly - not quite dead, but not quite as alive as it used to be.

Re: SourceForge's GitHub Importer

#23

Post by exikyut »

textmode wrote: post #21

As a consumer of source code, I do not use a graphical web browser to search and download from Sourceforge. A relatively simple http/https client will do. (Occasionally I have used cvs or svn if that is the only access.) Despite any changes in Sourceforge's ownership/management, I have not experienced any problems retrieving source code. I have not tried to use a graphical browser on Sourceforge since the 1990's. No…

> As a consumer of source code, I do not use a graphical web browser to search and download from Sourceforge. A relatively simple http/https client will do.

One caveat: all the file download links end in .../download, so if I throw the URL at wget it will save "download?verylongblahblah=blahblah1234567890". I have to use `wget --content-d` (short for content-disposition) to actually save the name correctly.

It's really annoying, but a behavior that has existed for many years.

GitHub fixed this with everything, from release downloads to raw gist links, by putting the "download" attribute further back in the URL, and having everything after the final slash be the uploaded file's filename.

Now THAT's nice.

Re: SourceForge's GitHub Importer

#24

Post by dpark »

swalladge wrote: post #14
giancarlostoro wrote: post #11

Gotta feel bad for SourceForge the new owners reversed the malpractices of its previous owners immediately and yet the damage is permanently done. I'll never understand why some think distributing spyware / malware for money is even remotely right in any way, shape, and form. How is any of it legal half the time...

I find it slightly odd that sourceforge is so highly shunned after the malware incidents, while various other large companies [eg. microsoft (dodgy behaviour in skype, etc.), facebook (spying, selling data), lenovo (superfish), etc.] have been caught doing similar dodgy things and yet it feels like the general community has forgiven or at least grudgingly overlooking them. May or may not be true - that's just the fee…

SourceForge gets shunned first because it’s easy. There are lots of great alternatives to SourceForge. SourceForge was already on the decline before their adware bundling fiasco so continuing to not use SourceForge is no burden for most devs.

Second, what SourceForge did was worse than your examples. They modified trusted applications to add essentially a malware payload. This is worse than Facebook collecting too much data and being shady with it. SourceForge was installing spyware on machines without permission. This betrayed the trust of both users and publishers and even damaged users’ trust in those publishers.

The only one of your examples that is comparable is Lenovo’s Superfish mess, and in that case they only betrayed users, not publishers. Not that it actually makes it better, but it changes the impact to Lenovo.

Disclosure: Microsoft employee.

Re: SourceForge's GitHub Importer

#25

Post by dpark »

tdeck wrote: post #16
jimrandomh wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually worse than that. As an open-source developer deciding where to host a project, I not only need to trust the host, I also need to expect users to also trust the host. If I expect 10% of potential users to bounce when they see that it's hosted on Sourceforge, well, hosting is enough of a commodity that I have no reason to give up on that 10%.

In addition to the malware issues, when I land on a SourceForge project that pretty much tells me "this project is dead or on life support" nine times out of ten.

This is true for me as well. SourceForge stopped being the host for anything I cared about years ago. If I land on SourceForge today because they host project X that might solve my problem, I generally start looking for project Y somewhere else.

Re: SourceForge's GitHub Importer

#26

Post by duxup »

exikyut wrote: post #19
duxup wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They had to know when they bought it. Can't feel that bad for them, they knew.

Hmm. I wonder what their agenda is. Not assuming absolute malice, but I am really curious.

I wonder too.

A legacy brand sometimes has value, or at least is valued, but this one has a lot of tarnish.

They're still around (surprising) so maybe they're kinda ... making something money wise? I dunno...

Re: SourceForge's GitHub Importer

#27

Post by mandeepj »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #11

Gotta feel bad for SourceForge the new owners reversed the malpractices of its previous owners immediately and yet the damage is permanently done. I'll never understand why some think distributing spyware / malware for money is even remotely right in any way, shape, and form. How is any of it legal half the time...

New owners should have rebranded it to drop the baggage

Re: SourceForge's GitHub Importer

#28

Post by chris_wot »

duxup wrote: post #7
throwaway2016a wrote: post #2

Does anyone still use SourceForge after they started embedding adware with their download links? I give them credit for being an early innovator and I know they are under new management as of 2016 and supposedly put that behind them[1] but they have permanently lost my trust. [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/under...

Yeah that was in the area of unforgivable as far as I'm concerned.

Is this the same duxup of K5 fame?

Re: SourceForge's GitHub Importer

#29

Post by mbfg »

Setting aside the malware issue, and the project graveyard smell, and just looking at it like a new platform, the design just seems all wrong. The big comic ui elements are ugly and unprofessional, and the code is too hidden, not the central point of the project.
Post reply on HN