31–40 of 52 posts
SourceForge, like other sites managed by VA Linux/SF/Geeknet, has a terrible record of user friendliness. How many Slashcode-based sites are still running?
You know as much as I hate these terms, I think nothing captures the undeniable yet intangible difference between SourceForge and GitHub as Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0. For the younger members here I think it's hard to imagine just how freaking cool SourceForge was when it first came out. The idea of free, featureful project hosting was amazing. Back in the 90s, even if you had free hosting, there wasn't the selection of easy…
I would only argue one point in this: Github is not a developer's paradise. It's good. In fact, it's really good. But it has one huge weakness, something which all DVCS repositories seem to have followed: they charge per repository. This is a terrible pricing model. It should, if anything, be based on per-GB of storage regardless of repositories. Otherwise it gets hideously expensive for people to, say, have many sma…
Unfuddle charges by space used, not per-repo. For Git projects, the per-repo pricing of Github is insane. They don't even have a public pricing plan for the number of repos I'd need for my personal (and private) coding. I use Unfuddle for my private and business code.
It's the only thing that has me looking for alternatives.
Here's another take on this - programmers hate ads and SourceForge is riddled with them. GitHub isn't. Also, if I want to setup a repo and put it on GitHub, it's stupidly, ridiculously easy. SF isn't hard, but it isn't as easy. Open source software is about PROGRAMMERS collaborating. GitHub makes that incredibly easy and straightforward. Want to join a project? Fork the code and tweak til your hearts content. Your co…
You know as much as I hate these terms, I think nothing captures the undeniable yet intangible difference between SourceForge and GitHub as Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0. For the younger members here I think it's hard to imagine just how freaking cool SourceForge was when it first came out. The idea of free, featureful project hosting was amazing. Back in the 90s, even if you had free hosting, there wasn't the selection of easy…
Sourceforge seems unable to evolve because its business model is stuck in Web 1.0: bring as many visitors as you can and throw as many intrusive ads as possible in front of them before they can get what they wanted in the first place and leave.
From that angle, then: SourceForge is a great place to download installers, while GitHub is a great place to get the nitty-gritty details about making a bit of software.
Here's another take on this - programmers hate ads and SourceForge is riddled with them. GitHub isn't. Also, if I want to setup a repo and put it on GitHub, it's stupidly, ridiculously easy. SF isn't hard, but it isn't as easy. Open source software is about PROGRAMMERS collaborating. GitHub makes that incredibly easy and straightforward. Want to join a project? Fork the code and tweak til your hearts content. Your co…
Also, a fair bit of malware has been hosted there over the years and the site offers no useful search or way of finding what you're looking for.
The initial idea was a good one, but the founder cashed out long ago.
I would only argue one point in this: Github is not a developer's paradise. It's good. In fact, it's really good. But it has one huge weakness, something which all DVCS repositories seem to have followed: they charge per repository. This is a terrible pricing model. It should, if anything, be based on per-GB of storage regardless of repositories. Otherwise it gets hideously expensive for people to, say, have many sma…
The major downside is that the policy leads people to use git incorrectly by not using submodules where they are appropriate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My mind got snagged on that, too, and it wouldn't let go. The rest of his arguments are not wrong, but I think they fit under that umbrella. That is, it's because GitHub's front-end is nicer, and it's front-end is nicer because SourceForge is oriented around projects and GitHub is oriented around code. The change in focus enables a better presentation.
It's not that Github's CSS is better, or their graphics are better, but that their design is better, and design encompasses everything, top to bottom. Most things on Github feel effortless, and even the tricky things are far from frustrating. This is evidence that they care, and that care shows in that the graphics and CSS are very well done. Good design doesn't start with appearance, it ends with it.
Here's another take on this - programmers hate ads and SourceForge is riddled with them. GitHub isn't. Also, if I want to setup a repo and put it on GitHub, it's stupidly, ridiculously easy. SF isn't hard, but it isn't as easy. Open source software is about PROGRAMMERS collaborating. GitHub makes that incredibly easy and straightforward. Want to join a project? Fork the code and tweak til your hearts content. Your co…
I think that's an understatement. Sourceforge is so bad that for years (well before Github) I have dreaded downloading anything from it or needing to use its navigation in any way. Also, a fair bit of malware has been hosted there over the years and the site offers no useful search or way of finding what you're looking for. The initial idea was a good one, but the founder cashed out long ago.
These days, it feels much better though.
Whereas github lets you get a repo up and running with just about a single click and a 'git push', and then add on features and information as you grow. So it became the place to stick all of your one-off, throwaway, or experimental code, which got developers in the habit of using it, and it also had the room to grow if once of those things grew into a "real" project.