Sourceforge Hijacks the Nmap Sourceforge Account • Hacker News Board

Re: Sourceforge Hijacks the Nmap Sourceforge Account

#101

Post by spacemanmatt » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 11:51 AM UTC

vermooten wrote: post #96

luso_brazilian wrote: post #25

Just submitted the story to Slashdot [1]. Sharing the same owner as Sourceforge let's see if it gets "buried" [2] (or "late released due to an editor vacation" [3] as it was their explanation) or if they publish it in a timely manner and within the spirit of the submission. [1] http://slashdot.org/submission/4487045/sourceforge-hijacks-t... [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/381q6r/slashdot_buryi... [3] http:…

This is all such a shame. GitHub is to Sourceforge what HN is to Slashdot.

That is unfair to GitHub.

Re: Sourceforge Hijacks the Nmap Sourceforge Account

#102

Post by xavel » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 11:51 AM UTC

ExpiredLink wrote: post #8

>> SourceForge.net is owned and operated by Slashdot Media. Slashdot Media is a DHI Group, Inc. company.

That explains why these kind of news have been entirely absent from slashdot (with the exception of that one heavily castrated entry).

Re: Sourceforge Hijacks the Nmap Sourceforge Account

#103

Post by scintill76 » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 11:52 AM UTC

luso_brazilian wrote: post #25

Just submitted the story to Slashdot [1]. Sharing the same owner as Sourceforge let's see if it gets "buried" [2] (or "late released due to an editor vacation" [3] as it was their explanation) or if they publish it in a timely manner and within the spirit of the submission. [1] http://slashdot.org/submission/4487045/sourceforge-hijacks-t... [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/381q6r/slashdot_buryi... [3] http:…

Slashdot and Sourceforge, is it 2006 again? ;)

Re: Sourceforge Hijacks the Nmap Sourceforge Account

#104

Post by bad_user » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 12:00 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #92

bad_user wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a wise saying that I've read on every submission about Sourceforge, problem is that I think it is in general bullshit. If we'll look down in history, I think there are very few villains that have acted as heroes when starting out. The signs that such companies are assholes are in general there, from the start. As an example, I don't remember a time in which Sourceforge was the hero, as much as I try. Sinc…

Well, it was a joke based on a cliche from a Batman film. In terms of wise sayings, it's on the level of fortune cookies. But the underlying point is similar to "you are the product". People chose Sourceforge because it offered free hosting. It was for a long time the "default" choice, back in the early 2000s. They had banner ads, usually from other Linux companies, and that seemed to pay for it. It was easier to use…

Not sure how profitable GitHub is, but there are users paying for private repositories or for the Enterprise version and the revenues thus far seem to be enough to support the free users as well and to an outsider like me being a win-win situation, since GitHub is now the place to be on, with open-source projects giving them free exposure, with the Enterprise version starting to win against other established solutions because "everybody knows GitHub". I used to be a paying customer of GitHub, now I'm enjoying the free benefits and pushing for the Enterprise edition in my organization. Am I the product in this case?

I do hate the "free to play (with gouging IAPs)" model and I actually prefer ads with an option to go ad-free. However even with this business model there are heroes. See for example Path of Exile, a free game in which the in-app purchases do not have an impact on your ability to win: https://www.pathofexile.com/

I do agree with you, the chosen business model makes the difference. I do believe that ads aren't inherently evil, it's just the status quo that is. Yes, today ad-supported means that we are the product, but this product has a free will, a fact that some companies are forgetting. At the very least there are some signs of change. Google for example is at least trying to play it both ways - you can be a paying customer of Google Apps and they'll introduce subscriptions to YouTube for going ads free (with the ability to cache content for offline viewing on mobile devices being the incentive needed for regular folks).

Re: Sourceforge Hijacks the Nmap Sourceforge Account

#105

Post by alfiedotwtf » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 12:17 PM UTC

> If you don't trust SSL by itself (and we don't blame you), you can also check the GPG signatures: https://nmap.org/book/install.html#inst-integrity

Ironically linking to a page served via SSL

Re: Sourceforge Hijacks the Nmap Sourceforge Account

#106

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 12:18 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #104

pjc50 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it was a joke based on a cliche from a Batman film. In terms of wise sayings, it's on the level of fortune cookies. But the underlying point is similar to "you are the product". People chose Sourceforge because it offered free hosting. It was for a long time the "default" choice, back in the early 2000s. They had banner ads, usually from other Linux companies, and that seemed to pay for it. It was easier to use…

Not sure how profitable GitHub is, but there are users paying for private repositories or for the Enterprise version and the revenues thus far seem to be enough to support the free users as well and to an outsider like me being a win-win situation, since GitHub is now the place to be on, with open-source projects giving them free exposure, with the Enterprise version starting to win against other established solution…

Github are indeed the heroes of the day and have an enterprise revenue model. So far, so good. But Sourceforge is sixteen years old. Will Github still be the good guys in 2030? It's impossible to know.

Re: Sourceforge Hijacks the Nmap Sourceforge Account

#107

Post by ssijak » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 12:19 PM UTC

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #105

> If you don't trust SSL by itself (and we don't blame you), you can also check the GPG signatures: https://nmap.org/book/install.html#inst-integrity Ironically linking to a page served via SSL

keyword : "by itself"

Re: Sourceforge Hijacks the Nmap Sourceforge Account

#108

Post by jessaustin » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 12:20 PM UTC

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #105

> If you don't trust SSL by itself (and we don't blame you), you can also check the GPG signatures: https://nmap.org/book/install.html#inst-integrity Ironically linking to a page served via SSL

Ironically...

Not really. It's just a quick guide to using gpg to verify a software distribution. Many people already know how to do this, or you could look at the manpage if you prefer.

Re: Sourceforge Hijacks the Nmap Sourceforge Account

#109

Post by userbinator » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 12:29 PM UTC

alfiedotwtf wrote: post #105

> If you don't trust SSL by itself (and we don't blame you), you can also check the GPG signatures: https://nmap.org/book/install.html#inst-integrity Ironically linking to a page served via SSL

You need to have a chain of trust somehow... that's the best they could do.

Re: Sourceforge Hijacks the Nmap Sourceforge Account

#110

Post by DannoHung » Wed, Jun 03, 2015, 12:30 PM UTC

nononononono wrote: post #13

So what decent release tarball storage services are there today if github's autogenerated release tarballs don't do it for you?

Realistically, we need to move to decentralization for this. Same way that the distributed github project was like a, "Oh yeah, this is our insurance policy in case GitHub ever becomes garbage."