5 ms·

Sidenote, but have we collectively forgiven Sourceforge for bundling crapware installers into binaries?

by robin_reala 5y ago

tssva 5y ago
Sourceforge was sold over 6 years ago and the current ownership never bundled crapware installers into binaries.
- rob74 5y ago
  Good to know, but I'm afraid the negative publicity generated by the crapware debacle reached a much larger audience compared to the change of ownership, so the public sentiment toward Sourceforge is still largely negative...
  - petee 5y ago
    Visiting the site today you are greeted by large popups and imitation download buttons (same size, color, style) so it's easy to assume they are still following dark patterns, even if it's not the case. After garnering such a reputation I'm surprised they didn't do more to make it clear it's not the same company, though I see its Slashdot Media, which doesn't have a great reputation anymore either, if I recall
    - colordrops 5y ago
      They are following dark patterns, just not the bundling one.
      - rob74 5y ago
        TBF, when you integrate ads, you also integrate all the dark patterns that the advertisers choose to use (unless the ad provider blocks them, but I wouldn't rely on that)
    - mrspuratic 5y ago
      The UI is a trainwreck and the download redirections are a mess (but at least every download isn't called "master.zip").
      - GrayShade 5y ago
        That's a cheap jab at GitHub. You only get a file master.zip if you download the latest snapshot of that branch. If you download a proper release, you will get an archive with the release name.
        mrspuratic 5y ago
        Yes it is. And a valid observation. It do not believe it a sensible default when the filename doesn't tell you what, or when/version. Even when you pick a branch or tag you only get release.zip, and not the project name.
    - unixhero 5y ago
      I am surprised the Freedos project hasn't moved off it.
unixhero 5y ago
Would be sweet if they would leave Sourceforge and host it somewhere else. Sourceforge will never be forgiven.
- HeckFeck 5y ago
  It lingers on mostly to host the MS Web Safe fonts. https://sourceforge.net/top/ https://sourceforge.net/top/ IIRC this is from where the core fonts installer on Debian fetches them. Hence the 2.7B downloads.
eitland 5y ago
Yep. Why not after 6 years? Sourceforge was a useful tool back in the days, had a brief connection with adware, changed owner and was never caught doing it again. Compare to certain FAANG companies that still spy and push ads and still have billion dollar valuations they paid an unreasonable large price for comparatively small transgressions.
bsuvc 5y ago
No, not really. Maybe I hold a grudge longer than others though. On the very rare occasion I click a link that takes me to SourceForge, I just leave. I wonder why anyone still uses SourceForge. How is it better than GitHub or GitLab? This is a serious question, so if you do, can you explain why?
- nix23 5y ago
  Big downloads...like iso's

Sidenote, but have we collectively forgiven Sourceforge for bundling crapware installers into binaries?

tssva 5y ago

Sourceforge was sold over 6 years ago and the current ownership never bundled crapware installers into binaries.

rob74 5y ago
Good to know, but I'm afraid the negative publicity generated by the crapware debacle reached a much larger audience compared to the change of ownership, so the public sentiment toward Sourceforge is still largely negative...
- petee 5y ago
  Visiting the site today you are greeted by large popups and imitation download buttons (same size, color, style) so it's easy to assume they are still following dark patterns, even if it's not the case. After garnering such a reputation I'm surprised they didn't do more to make it clear it's not the same company, though I see its Slashdot Media, which doesn't have a great reputation anymore either, if I recall
  - colordrops 5y ago
    They are following dark patterns, just not the bundling one.
    - rob74 5y ago
      TBF, when you integrate ads, you also integrate all the dark patterns that the advertisers choose to use (unless the ad provider blocks them, but I wouldn't rely on that)
  - mrspuratic 5y ago
    The UI is a trainwreck and the download redirections are a mess (but at least every download isn't called "master.zip").
    - GrayShade 5y ago
      That's a cheap jab at GitHub. You only get a file master.zip if you download the latest snapshot of that branch. If you download a proper release, you will get an archive with the release name.
      - mrspuratic 5y ago
        Yes it is. And a valid observation. It do not believe it a sensible default when the filename doesn't tell you what, or when/version. Even when you pick a branch or tag you only get release.zip, and not the project name.
  - unixhero 5y ago
    I am surprised the Freedos project hasn't moved off it.

unixhero 5y ago

Would be sweet if they would leave Sourceforge and host it somewhere else. Sourceforge will never be forgiven.

HeckFeck 5y ago
It lingers on mostly to host the MS Web Safe fonts. https://sourceforge.net/top/ https://sourceforge.net/top/ IIRC this is from where the core fonts installer on Debian fetches them. Hence the 2.7B downloads.

eitland 5y ago

Yep. Why not after 6 years? Sourceforge was a useful tool back in the days, had a brief connection with adware, changed owner and was never caught doing it again. Compare to certain FAANG companies that still spy and push ads and still have billion dollar valuations they paid an unreasonable large price for comparatively small transgressions.

bsuvc 5y ago

No, not really. Maybe I hold a grudge longer than others though. On the very rare occasion I click a link that takes me to SourceForge, I just leave. I wonder why anyone still uses SourceForge. How is it better than GitHub or GitLab? This is a serious question, so if you do, can you explain why?

nix23 5y ago
Big downloads...like iso's