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

61–70 of 79 posts

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

#61

Post by imroot »

yuhong wrote: post #25
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…

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

Souceforge had an enterprise edition (Disclaimer: I was a Sysadmin/support guy/developer of SFEE in my 7 years of working with that product). Unfortunately, SF.net's issue system is nothing compared to what JIRA or Redmine can do right now. While they have the File Release System or downloads, in theory, most places want that handled by a CI system -- something that Jenkins can do rather well with just about any type of file system or backend. User management? Most enterprises have some type of SSO or user management in place already, and the sf.net code didn't have the ability to use another source for user management.

The only thing that SFEE did well was provide a single 'neck' for customers to strangle when things went wrong -- and we became very, very good at keeping those customers happy.

If you're looking for the last public release of the sf.net code, it's from around 2003/2004, and it's....messy. SFEE (the product that I worked on) was acquired by CollabNet in 2006, and is now something called CollabNet TeamForge, but, I wouldn't use it for an enterprise anything these days).

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

#62

Post by jeffasinger »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #42
telephonetemp wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 aft…

What about bitbucket with the downloads feature?

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

#63

Post by bad_user »

tenfingers wrote: post #59
illumen wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

github signals fly by night to many.

I have to nod on this. Github is a great indicator for developers mostly, but from any user point of view, having a source dump is next to useless. And by user, I do not mean a dumb user. I would consider myself the user of a library if I'm not planning to contribute. I can only contribute meaningfully to a dozen of OSS projects; for the others I'm pretty much an ordinary user. In that case I care much more about int…

Even if I'm not a contributor, GitHub hosting of projects is for me very valuable, as I can sneak peek quickly at the implementation. Many projects also have samples and good tests and taking a quick look at the implementation (and I'm talking about randomly selecting files and opening them), not to mention the list of commits, can tell you a lot of things about how the project is being maintained, about quality and so on.

Developers should really stop behaving like dumb users.

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

#64

Post by JohnTHaller »

fredsted wrote: post #54
JohnTHaller wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most companies block torrents. And software that does torrent downloads often gets flagged as badware. We considered building torrent into the PortableApps.com Platform and getting users to help share bandwidth with other users, but those stumbling blocks are pretty big ones.

>Most companies block torrents. Most companies also block random software like PortableApps.com.

You'd be surprised how very few do. We keep things clean, well-behaved, and virus-free for a reason.

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

#65

Post by bad_user »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #36
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…

> - Most users just click OK for installers, it is like the EULA This installer specifically has a separate page for the offer with a big Accept and Decline button along with a What's This link in between that links to a page explaining it. > - I am yet to see a toolbar that does anything useful to anybody They also offer trial versions of certain software like antivirus and were working on getting other software on…

Antivirus software is the perfect illustration of snake-oil. Antiviruses don't actually protect the user from anything, they just use tons of resources while making loud notifications, to make the user think she's continually under threat and oh look, this piece of shit is actually worth something.

I've got an old PC at home, with a ten year old installation of Windows XP, on which I play games. It never had an antivirus active, I just run ClamAV on it every couple of years. It was never virused either. My wife's laptop on the other hand is perpetually virused, in spite of the commercial antiviruses that she tried. That's because those antiviruses don't do shit for her, or for the hundreds of millions of users that get tricked into paying racketeering taxes.

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

#66

Post by JohnTHaller »

jeffasinger wrote: post #62
JohnTHaller wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aft…

What about bitbucket with the downloads feature?

I can't seem to find any details on it on their site (it's absent from Features and Documentation) and nothing relevant came up in a quick Google search.

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

#67

Post by JohnTHaller »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #36
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…

> - Most users just click OK for installers, it is like the EULA This installer specifically has a separate page for the offer with a big Accept and Decline button along with a What's This link in between that links to a page explaining it. > - I am yet to see a toolbar that does anything useful to anybody They also offer trial versions of certain software like antivirus and were working on getting other software on…

I really love the "Waaa, facts I don't like" downvotes the best. :)

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

#68

Post by bad_user »

copx wrote: post #33
jevinskie wrote: post #5

This is also a problem with FileZilla. Sourceforge pushing adware? I never thought I would see the day - totally absurd! https://forum.filezilla-project.org/viewtopic.php?t=30240

Some people here seem to be seriously confused by anti-SF FUD. These ad-ware loaded installers are not the default. You have to explicitly opt-in. It provides SF and projects hosted there (a kinda shady) optional way to make money. The FileZilla installer contains ad-ware because the FileZilla developers chose to add it. It is their attempt to make money. I use SF too but none of my projects come with ad-ware install…

And that's why companies like Apple or Google or Amazon or Microsoft, feel morally justified to lock-in users inside of their curated app stores. It's because of Windows and its ecosystem filled with all the scum this industry has to offer.

People pay for valuable software. If people don't want to pay for your software, then it may mean that your software isn't worth paying for. And I can agree with ads loaded inside that software. In my eyes ads are a legitimate way of monetizing software.

But pushing extra adware junk down on users' throats, especially plugins for other pieces of software, like browsers? That's taking it a step way too far. And this also hurts developers that are monetizing their apps by serving tasteful ads. Not to mention that it hurts the browser makers - for example my wife wants Chrome, not Firefox, because she doesn't have the expertise to keep her Firefox clean and because Firefox is more open, more extensible, I've never seen a Firefox instance on Windows that's not overloaded with third-party junk.

But hey, lets poison the pool for everybody, right? Thanks guys for killing an otherwise viable business model, not to mention the only major browser built by a non-profit.

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

#69

Post by olau »

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?

With hetzner.de, you get 20 TB/per month included with a dedicated server and then 2 EUR/TB after that http://www.hetzner.de/en/hosting/produkte_rootserver/ex40

So not free, but not as expensive as S3 and friends.

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

#70

Post by bad_user »

JohnTHaller wrote: post #66
jeffasinger wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about bitbucket with the downloads feature?

I can't seem to find any details on it on their site (it's absent from Features and Documentation) and nothing relevant came up in a quick Google search.

It's there. When viewing your project's details, you've got a tab called "Downloads". You can then upload stuff like binaries, and I quote from that interface: "Add any file that you would like to make available to your users, such as app binaries"
Post reply on HN