SourceForge goes to hell

[EricBarbour]

As one of the VLC developers complains, SourceForge (the world's most popular distribution site for open-source software for many years) has turned into just another scummy commercial download site, complete with screaming ads and malware installers disguised as "Download" buttons. Figured this would happen someday. So much for the "magical world" of open-source software.

https://blog.l0cal.com/2015/06/02/what- ... urceforge/

They are already under fire for "hijacking" open-source projects......

http://www.computerworld.com/article/29 ... tbwcw.html
http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... l-project/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2930032/ ... ssion.html

I suppose this means Slashdot, owned by the same company, will now be packed with flashing ads and garbage Javascripts. And will start to decline. (I mean REALLY decline, as in down to zero. Participation declined badly about ten years ago, then Malda and his crew sold it in 2009.)

[greybeard]

I hadn't noticed this on SourceForge, which I go to intermittently. Then I realized that I, like virtually any hacker worth thinking about, have AdBlock installed on all of my browsers. When I turned it off for a moment, sure enough, SourceForge was covered in nasty advertising. I turned AdBlock (an open-source piece of software) back on, and the mess mercifully disappeared again.

There is an issue for community-sponsored software repositories like SourceForge, GitHub, and the like -- how does one pay for a large and complex software repository, bandwidth to and from, professional backups, site and software development and maintenance, and so on? You can have a sugar daddy (Google Code, Microsoft Codeplex), you can use one of the semi-commercial ones (Assembla, Ubrimi), or you can go your own way.

It's amusing that you are mocking this situation: this is the reason that Wikipedia decided against, and continues not to use advertising to support itself, instead raising millions of dollars in charity, while still not paying professional editors. Nobody seems to notice when a site does advertising more-or-less right, but we all notice (unless we run AdBlock) when they get it wrong, as I will agree SourceForge seems to have done. But the alternative is to hire a development director and pass around the begging plate, or charge for it, and drive away most of the nascent, entry-level, or semi-moribund projects out there. It's unfortunate, in my opinion.

In the meantime, everyone I know has moved on to GitHub, which doesn't seem to be advertising, but does have a "Freemium" model.

[EricBarbour]

It's amusing that you are mocking this situation: this is the reason that Wikipedia decided against, and continues not to use advertising to support itself, instead raising millions of dollars in charity, while still not paying professional editors. Nobody seems to notice when a site does advertising more-or-less right, but we all notice (unless we run AdBlock) when they get it wrong, as I will agree SourceForge seems to have done. But the alternative is to hire a development director and pass around the begging plate, or charge for it, and drive away most of the nascent, entry-level, or semi-moribund projects out there. It's unfortunate, in my opinion.

Unfortunate things happen on the web every day. Advertising is one thing (and easily blocked as you noted), but putting phony "DOWNLOAD NOW!" buttons on a download page, that actually install "toolbars" and other crap, is in another league. You see that on Bittorrent sites that "cheerfully ignore" copyright, such as Pirate Bay and Torrentfreak. People don't typically expect that on open-source distributors.

When Wikipedia had its advertising battle in 2001-2002, dirty tricks like this were still in their infancy, for a damn good reason: most net users didn't have broadband yet. So installing a large application took a very long time, and even the dumb users noticed it. Bomis ran skeezy ads but they never descended to this level. Comparing Wikipedia to free-software download sites doesn't really work for me, sorry.

I wish WP WOULD hire professional editors. And I'd be willing to put up with some advertising in return. In fact, if an online reference work was good enough and reliable enough, I'd pay for a subscription. Is that an "absurd" concept? Why?

[greybeard]

Not absurd at all -- it's a sign of a maturing field that sites begin to monetize their assets, whether for profit or just to keep running. Different places do it with differing degrees of sensibility, and differing degrees of success. It is sad that SourceForge didn't do it sensibly, but (as you point out) they'll either fix it or their users will move on (it's not ads that are the biggest issue, it's bloatware in the downloads).

And of course Wikipedia should hire professional editors, of course they could support some (minimal, well-run) advertising, and of course there is a viable subscription model. I doubt they'll get there, however, and I suspect we agree on that as well.

[MoldyHay]

GitHub has found an excellent mix between community and commercial sponsorship, and it's hard to overstate how much they've changed the way software is built, at least in my line of work. They're primarily known for hosting open-source projects and making it very easy to accept community contributions, but they also charge to host private repositories and provide a very straightforward way for companies to store their code and control access to it. Because of their pay model, they make enough money to keep the servers running and sexually harass their front-end devs without running ads.

I could envision an encyclopedia or other sort of knowledge repository run along the lines of GitHub, but it would not be similar to Wikipedia...it'd be more like Wikia could have been if it hadn't been run by bozos...

[Kelly Martin]

As one of the VLC developers complains, SourceForge (the world's most popular distribution site for open-source software for many years) has turned into just another scummy commercial download site, complete with screaming ads and malware installers disguised as "Download" buttons. Figured this would happen someday.

SourgeForge has been crap for at least four or five years now, maybe longer. Virtually everything has moved to Github, Google Code, or any of a number of other providers. If you're just now noticing this, then you're not even remotely active or involved in open source software development.

[EricBarbour]

As one of the VLC developers complains, SourceForge (the world's most popular distribution site for open-source software for many years) has turned into just another scummy commercial download site, complete with screaming ads and malware installers disguised as "Download" buttons. Figured this would happen someday.

SourgeForge has been crap for at least four or five years now, maybe longer. Virtually everything has moved to Github, Google Code, or any of a number of other providers. If you're just now noticing this, then you're not even remotely active or involved in open source software development.

Nor would I want to, after seeing the way that little world "operates". With people like Stallman, Hans Reiser, Linus screaming obscenities at developers, developers screaming obscenities at each other, petty egos, broken projects released as "beta", etc. etc. shall I go on?

Oh, almost forgot Kip Macy, prominent FreeBSD developer currently in San Quentin:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/24 ... cy_arrest/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-land ... d=20875476

[Vigilant]

As one of the VLC developers complains, SourceForge (the world's most popular distribution site for open-source software for many years) has turned into just another scummy commercial download site, complete with screaming ads and malware installers disguised as "Download" buttons. Figured this would happen someday.

SourgeForge has been crap for at least four or five years now, maybe longer. Virtually everything has moved to Github, Google Code, or any of a number of other providers. If you're just now noticing this, then you're not even remotely active or involved in open source software development.

Nor would I want to, after seeing the way that little world "operates". With people like Stallman, Hans Reiser, Linus screaming obscenities at developers, developers screaming obscenities at each other, petty egos, broken projects released as "beta", etc. etc. shall I go on?

Oh, almost forgot Kip Macy, prominent FreeBSD developer currently in San Quentin:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/24 ... cy_arrest/
http://abcnews.go.com/US/exclusive-land ... d=20875476

What makes you think that the per capita dickhead factor is lower in the general population of software guys than that of the open source software guys?

[greybeard]

What makes you think that the per capita dickhead factor is lower in the general population of software guys than that of the open source software guys?

+1. We could even say "guys in general", or "rock musicians". Yet another example of Eric's confirmation bias.

[EricBarbour]

What makes you think that the per capita dickhead factor is lower in the general population of software guys than that of the open source software guys?

I never made such an outright claim. The "general population of software guys" works for for-profit companies, who expect their software to work, because profit. That "supposedly" helps to minimize outright crazy activities -- they want to stay in business, yes? There are assholes and "brogrammer" types everywhere, in any business. Wall Street investment bankers and stock shills make software guys look timid and dull by comparison.

My point is that shenanigans like SourceForge's are ultimately bad for the public reputations of what are supposed to be "free and open" software projects. How do you convince people (especially businesspeople and government agencies) to use GIMP instead of Photoshop or LibreOffice instead of Microsoft Office, when stuff like this is running in the tech media? We don't even know how bad it might be in the long run.

Eventually this whole issue would come around to Wikipedia, even though it's not a "software project". It subscribes to similar philosophies to the open-source world and has deep ties thereto. Is bad press about open-source bad for Wikipedia's public reputation, and are Wikipedia scandals ultimately bad for open-source? No hard information, no studies or research papers that I can find. Lots of propaganda, though.

[greybeard]

What makes you think that the per capita dickhead factor is lower in the general population of software guys than that of the open source software guys?

I never made such an outright claim. The "general population of software guys" works for for-profit companies, who expect their software to work, because profit.

The vast preponderance of Open Source software engineers work for for-profit companies. Intel, IBM, Google, Oracle, and others employ thousands or tens of thousands of such engineers. Further, most software engineers anywhere, doing pretty much anything these days work on or are regularly exposed to Open Source Software as part of their work. Virtually all of the Web runs on OSS, whether part of OSS companies, non-profits, or otherwise.

My point is that shenanigans like SourceForge's are ultimately bad for the public reputations of what are supposed to be "free and open" software projects.

That is utterly wrong, and betrays your deep lack of understanding of the area. Shenanigans like SourceForge's are bad for SourceForge, and are a part of what caused the migration to GitHub and others. The fact that the migration can (and does) occur owes a great deal to Open Source and the refusal of software people to become "locked-in".

Wikipedia, ... subscribes to similar philosophies to the open-source world and has deep ties thereto.

And there again we have Eric's confirmation bias. Wikipedia shares some principles with OSS, and Wikipedia is bad, therefore OSS must also be bad. QED. What a crock of shit.

[lilburne]

So anyone fancy buying SourceForge? Slashdot thrown in for free.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/28 ... urceforge/

[greybeard]

No doubt a fine way to make a small fortune ...... out of a large one.

[evouga]

Worse, it began injecting adware into open source software installers for Windows, and in some cases SourceForge administrators even took control of the SourceForge accounts of open source projects so they could make sure that only the ad-encumbered installers were available.

What in the world?!!

This goes far beyond simply adding misleading ads to the site. I don't see how any open source project could feel comfortable being hosted there if these types of shenanigans are going on.