4 ms·

To me what Github got right is making virtually no distinction between end users and developers. SF tried to shelter "end users" from "dev stuff" yielding bad

by auganov 11y ago

To me what Github got right is making virtually no distinction between end users and developers. SF tried to shelter "end users" from "dev stuff" yielding bad experiences for both. It's hard to use open source projects without getting at least a little bit technical. And it's hard to contribute when the dev side of things is kind of hidden somewhere. And yes, 2-3 clicks in the UI do make all the difference. (I'm not replying specifically to this comment, just the whole discussion on what made GitHub better)

sgc 11y ago
There is one thing about github I find annoying, which is inseparable from what makes it great. On SF, it was normal and the cultural norm to find compiled software along with the the source. I just spent my morning going back and forth with a dev on github because his project will not compile on my machine. I had found a cludgey hack to get working, but it broke any chance of future commits, and I figured he would rather have things working right. We both just gave up in the end, it wasn't worth the time for the estimated amount of effort I was going to put into the project. Given the widely different environments people work in, it would be nice to see a bit more compiled code, and the concomitant dev effort before release to make sure it is actually possible for other people to use. On SF I downloaded so many little utilities similar to GNU tools that just worked and got me running in under a minute on Windows, and that is much harder to find today (except on SF--and I hope they come back to rock on!).
- loganabbott 11y ago
  Thanks! SF will be rocking on soon enough.
- voltagex_ 11y ago
  Yep. I've been looking into places I can host compiled binaries on a budget of $0. GitHub Releases makes it difficult for security reasons and S3 doesn't fit in my budget. Here's hoping for the SF revival.
  - sytse 11y ago
    Consider using our GitLab. We're working on making the build artifacts (binaries) more accessible from the tag/release page https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/13161 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/13161
JohnTHaller 11y ago
github doesn't really serve "end users" for the most part. github is designed for libraries and pieces of open source that will be used by other developers. So the "end users" github services are developers. SourceForge is designed so that developers can serve their wares to end users. As in, someone with a Windows PC that wants to download a media player. This difference in use case is one reason that SourceForge's top projects are all apps and github's top projects are all libraries/framerworks for use in development projects.
iSnow 11y ago
I have to disagree. One of my pet complaints about github is that my mother couldn't download anything useful from there. SF had great downloads of binaries and I feel that's why it is still used by portableapps and others. If you can't be assed to click 2-3 times, you won't be the most valuable contributor anyway.

by auganov 11y ago

sgc 11y ago

There is one thing about github I find annoying, which is inseparable from what makes it great. On SF, it was normal and the cultural norm to find compiled software along with the the source. I just spent my morning going back and forth with a dev on github because his project will not compile on my machine. I had found a cludgey hack to get working, but it broke any chance of future commits, and I figured he would rather have things working right. We both just gave up in the end, it wasn't worth the time for the estimated amount of effort I was going to put into the project. Given the widely different environments people work in, it would be nice to see a bit more compiled code, and the concomitant dev effort before release to make sure it is actually possible for other people to use. On SF I downloaded so many little utilities similar to GNU tools that just worked and got me running in under a minute on Windows, and that is much harder to find today (except on SF--and I hope they come back to rock on!).

loganabbott 11y ago
Thanks! SF will be rocking on soon enough.
voltagex_ 11y ago
Yep. I've been looking into places I can host compiled binaries on a budget of $0. GitHub Releases makes it difficult for security reasons and S3 doesn't fit in my budget. Here's hoping for the SF revival.
- sytse 11y ago
  Consider using our GitLab. We're working on making the build artifacts (binaries) more accessible from the tag/release page https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/13161 https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/issues/13161

JohnTHaller 11y ago

github doesn't really serve "end users" for the most part. github is designed for libraries and pieces of open source that will be used by other developers. So the "end users" github services are developers. SourceForge is designed so that developers can serve their wares to end users. As in, someone with a Windows PC that wants to download a media player. This difference in use case is one reason that SourceForge's top projects are all apps and github's top projects are all libraries/framerworks for use in development projects.

iSnow 11y ago

I have to disagree. One of my pet complaints about github is that my mother couldn't download anything useful from there. SF had great downloads of binaries and I feel that's why it is still used by portableapps and others. If you can't be assed to click 2-3 times, you won't be the most valuable contributor anyway.