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

GIMP Windows Installers move from Sourceforge to ftp.gimp.org

gimp.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: GIMP Windows Installers move from Sourceforge to ftp.gimp.org

#41

Post by simonhn »

idupree wrote: post #18
conductor wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their mirrors system is working very well. It's very easy to distribute big files (like ISO images) through Sourceforge's mirrors. No wonder that Adobe's leaked users database was (or still is) being distributed using Sourceforge mirrors.

It's hard to download from Sourceforge using HTTPS. (Or even to use HTTPS to get the SHA hash of a download.) Can you tell me how to do it, so I can download from Sourceforge without risk of a man-in-the-middle modifying the download to, say, contain malicious code?

Navigating to the directory from the 'Files' tab and clicking the 'i' icon to the right of each filename available for download displays the 'View details' panel with the SHA1 hash of that file. Is that not enough?

Re: GIMP Windows Installers move from Sourceforge to ftp.gimp.org

#42

Post by JohnTHaller »

telephonetemp wrote: post #31
chrismorgan wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I shall ignore the toolbar installation matter; that has been discussed at length in the linked thread and there is little value in continuing that here.) > You should then consider a better host. Very well then; step one: identify a better host where PortableApps.com can get over 50TB per month for free. I'm not aware of any other than SourceForge which would do such a thing and John does not have the money to spen…

>identify a better host where PortableApps.com can get over 50TB per month for free With those amounts of traffic for SF's larger projects I wonder how and if one could build a competing website for hosting binary FOSS today and have it be profitable without resorting to shady tactics. Clearly, making the projects themselves pay is not an option. As for SF, even before the installer business under the current managem…

One site that would have had the bandwidth would have been Google Code. But they just dropped binary hosting. And they didn't support projects that used multiple licenses (PortableApps.com has tons of apps under every open source license).

The only other one is Github as they're growing and have $100m they raised earlier this year. They added in binary hosting as "Releases" but it's relatively new (this year) and after they killed binary hosting last year with no path to move to, I'd worry about it happening again as Github stabilizes its product offerings.

Re: GIMP Windows Installers move from Sourceforge to ftp.gimp.org

#43

Post by [deleted] »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #40
yuhong wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OT, but I wonder if SourceForge would create an Enterprise Edition again.

They did once, a long time ago. But Github has a big headstart on them in that department now... and $100m they just raised earlier this year to keep growing.

[deleted]

Re: GIMP Windows Installers move from Sourceforge to ftp.gimp.org

#44

Post by aradriel »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #16
mathrawka wrote: post #2

The link in the article sums up the "what happened to Sourceforge" pretty well: http://www.gluster.org/2013/08/how-far-the-once-mighty-sourc... The OSS project I maintained for several years was always in the top 10 downloaded lists on Sourceforge, but I got frustrated with how things were going and eventually moved the code to Github and hosted a simple website on my own. Honestly, I can't think of a reason why an O…

That article gets a lot of things very wrong as I pointed out when it was posted on HN last time (you'll see my comment at the top): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6262347 Github is an option for some folks but not for us. We need solid file hosting with lots of bandwidth (pushing well over 50TB a month at SF) that will be sticking around next month and next year. In my comment linked above, I mention that Gith…

I dont know what kind of contract SF made out with his mirror providers but i have doubts that they can keep all of them under these circumstances. SF ability to push such amounts off bins comes from support from providers and edu facilities.

Re: GIMP Windows Installers move from Sourceforge to ftp.gimp.org

#45

Post by Eiwatah4 »

chrismorgan wrote: post #28
eliteraspberrie wrote: post #11

Amazon Route 53 has a feature called Latency Based Routing , which you can use to distribute traffic to your own mirrors. With AWS, Rackspace and other similar cheap hosting, I see no reason for a SourceForge. By the way, SourceForge, Freecode (aka Freshmeat) and Slashdot were all acquired by Dice.com in September 2012.

The GIMP uses an awful lot of bandwidth monthly, well into the terabytes monthly, I believe. PortableApps.com is another project and one which I know much more about due to my involvement; it goes through over 50TB per month and with something like S3 that is already well over $5,000 per month at a minimum. No reason for SourceForge?

$ 5000 seems way too much.

50 TB of traffic would cost something like $ 200 (if all downloads were from the US or Europe) to $ 450 (if all of were from South America) according to this page: https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/?navclick=true#pricing

That's still a lot of money, of course.

Re: GIMP Windows Installers move from Sourceforge to ftp.gimp.org

#46

Post by jzzskijj »

Just realized my Windows laptop is still at Gimp 2.6 and while at www.gimp.org let's take this as an opportunity to update to 2.8 series:

Not Found

The requested URL /pub/gimp/v2.8/windows/gimp-2.8.8-setup.exe was not found on this server.

Bad timing for me apparently.

Re: GIMP Windows Installers move from Sourceforge to ftp.gimp.org

#47

Post by keithpeter »

tedunangst wrote: post #34
chrismorgan wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GIMP uses an awful lot of bandwidth monthly, well into the terabytes monthly, I believe. PortableApps.com is another project and one which I know much more about due to my involvement; it goes through over 50TB per month and with something like S3 that is already well over $5,000 per month at a minimum. No reason for SourceForge?

What are people downloading? At 20MB per download, that's more than 2.5 million downloads per month.

You beat me to the mental arithmetic there. I wonder what % of downloads are testing development releases and what % are downloading a stable version?

I use GIMP on a linux laptop of course so it is the version in the Debian Stable repository (2.8.2 on Wheezy).

Re: GIMP Windows Installers move from Sourceforge to ftp.gimp.org

#48

Post by selmnoo »

jeswin wrote: post #19
JohnTHaller wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That article gets a lot of things very wrong as I pointed out when it was posted on HN last time (you'll see my comment at the top): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6262347 Github is an option for some folks but not for us. We need solid file hosting with lots of bandwidth (pushing well over 50TB a month at SF) that will be sticking around next month and next year. In my comment linked above, I mention that Gith…

You should then consider a better host. SourceForge is clearly a scamware host now; maybe ever since Dice.com took over. And to be honest, just seeing a file hosted on SourceForge casts doubts on the quality of the app. - Most users just click OK for installers, it is like the EULA - I am yet to see a toolbar that does anything useful to anybody; other than make their system slower and buggy. I hold a very low opinio…

I really think designating torrenting as the primary method of downloading big binaries or really anything big is the way to go for OSS projects. I guarantee you more than a handful of people will offer seeding without asking anything in return. I certainly would be happy to seed any OSS project for a long time, I often have VPSs that are not being used (and in a way that really bugs me -- I'm paying money for things I'm not using fully. So I'm actually often on the lookout to see what OSS stuff I can seed).

Have a host as a secondary backup, for people who won't want to torrent.

Re: GIMP Windows Installers move from Sourceforge to ftp.gimp.org

#49

Post by josephlord »

Eiwatah4 wrote: post #45
chrismorgan wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The GIMP uses an awful lot of bandwidth monthly, well into the terabytes monthly, I believe. PortableApps.com is another project and one which I know much more about due to my involvement; it goes through over 50TB per month and with something like S3 that is already well over $5,000 per month at a minimum. No reason for SourceForge?

$ 5000 seems way too much. 50 TB of traffic would cost something like $ 200 (if all downloads were from the US or Europe) to $ 450 (if all of were from South America) according to this page: https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/?navclick=true#pricing That's still a lot of money, of course.

Can you recheck your maths? It is $0.08/GB (to Internet in the US 10-50TB volume price) not $0.0008/GB

1000 GB == 1TB

$0.08 * 50 * 1000 = $4,000

Or have I missed something?

Re: GIMP Windows Installers move from Sourceforge to ftp.gimp.org

#50

Post by nl »

selmnoo wrote: post #48
jeswin wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should then consider a better host. SourceForge is clearly a scamware host now; maybe ever since Dice.com took over. And to be honest, just seeing a file hosted on SourceForge casts doubts on the quality of the app. - Most users just click OK for installers, it is like the EULA - I am yet to see a toolbar that does anything useful to anybody; other than make their system slower and buggy. I hold a very low opinio…

I really think designating torrenting as the primary method of downloading big binaries or really anything big is the way to go for OSS projects. I guarantee you more than a handful of people will offer seeding without asking anything in return. I certainly would be happy to seed any OSS project for a long time, I often have VPSs that are not being used (and in a way that really bugs me -- I'm paying money for things…

You can host the backup http version on S3 and get Bittorrent automatically: http://aws.amazon.com/s3/faqs/#What_is_the_BitTorrent_TM_pro...

S3 isn't the cheapest for really big bandwidth though.

Post reply on HN