3 ms·

A lot of this is SourceForge's fault. They had a sizable lead and completely bungled it.

• bastawhiz 3y ago
  It's not just that they dropped the ball, they actively sabotaged whatever goodwill they had built by adding malware to software. Not only was this a massive hassle, it ruined the reputation of lots of FOSS projects with folks who just wanted to use some of the most popular consumer-ish open source software like Filezilla. While SF was crapping where they eat, GitHub built a lot of trust and goodwill with a lot of people.
  • viddi 3y ago
    It should be noted that the malware bundling was done when SourceForge was owned by DHI Group, Inc. And now, for many years already, SourceForge has switched owners (BIZX/Slashdot). They have undone the bundling and are now trying to manage it like it was managed before. It seems like it's going well. I would consider SF a viable Github alternative, but the bad reputation caused by a temporary owner just seems to stick forever.
    • Ferret7446 3y ago
      Just goes to show how much damage you can do to a brand by betraying your users. I still won't use SourceForge, fuck them.
    • techdragon 3y ago
      The Sourceforge UI and overall experience is still a decade or more behind the experience on GitHub and most of the other modern and maintained equivalent sites/services like Fossil, GitLab, Gitea, etc That ancient feeling UI doesn’t win them a lot of forgiveness, if the only notable change has been “we took away the malware” and the site continues to remain stagnant, SourceForge will continue to feel very inferior to more modern alternatives.
    • lifthrasiir 3y ago
      SF's development was also essentially stalled during that period, and the current owner has to do much more things other than (proper) management to cope with competitors. If you need a proof, compare SF with Gitea/Forgejo.