4 ms·

So wait, you tried to prevent SF to become a "shitty monoculture"? First: That sounds completely not like Google Second: Now you have GH as the "shitty monocu

So wait, you tried to prevent SF to become a "shitty monoculture"? First: That sounds completely not like Google Second: Now you have GH as the "shitty monoculture" (owner is MS and erases your license for Co-pilot) Third: >>We folded it up because we achieved the goal we sought at the time, and didn't see a reason to continue. Yeah ok that sounds like Google, try's to enter another market just to hurt them then folds ;)

remexre 2y ago
For a comparison on the scale of harm from the monoculture, recall that SourceForge was bundling malware with downloads, and still has a full page of ads when you download from it. If I recall correctly, SVN was also more popular than Git at the time, so migrating hosts was a lot more painful than now...
- BSDobelix 2y ago
  And then you force people to change from google code to something else just to prove a point since people then where unable to setup svn server ;) Even today you find death links from google code repos.
- bluGill 2y ago
  SVN's model is what everyone is using. Sure you git, but almost nobody is using the distributed parts - they all sync to a central sever (github). SVN just could get user management, or merges right - those should be solvable problems but somehow were not. (I don't know enough about SVN to speculate on why they didn't)
  - rswail 2y ago
    The main reason is that SVN's model of branching/tagging is based on directories in the working directory, whereas git's model (and to a certain extent, commercial SVNs like Clearcase and Perforce) is that branching/tagging is of the entire repository and not related to the file tree structure. This is a fundamental difference and the reason that git's model works much better when branching/merging.
DannyBee 2y ago
This was 2006 Google, which did stuff semi-altruistically all the time. At that point, SF was serving malware and stuff. It was really not a great time. Github became a monoculture years later when others folded. Google code was shut down in 2016. Github wasn't quite a monoculture then. I also said, back in 2014, that it might be necessary to do something like google code again in 5-10 years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8605689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8605689 10 years later, here we are i guess :) Though i think what i said then still holds - Github is not anywhere near as bad or unreliable as SF was.
- BSDobelix 2y ago
  SF served "malware" in 2013 NOT 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge#Adware_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge#Adware_controversy After slashdot was purchased from condenast (i think?)
  - naniwaduni 2y ago
    They had a bad name for the download pages being ad-infested even before they bundled the malware in the installers. (And yes, fake download buttons on a site serving binary downloads went exactly where you'd expect.)
    - BSDobelix 2y ago
      >fake download buttons Yes and today Ad-Sense (Google) took the Crown from being then biggest Scam AD's deploy-er. And really i don't think that's true before they where sold, ad's sure, scam/malware stuff? I don't think so...at least i cant remember.
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    I mean, that's just when they did it fairly deliberately. Regardless, I think you would be hard pressed to argue SF was a great hosting environment when Google Code launched, which was the point.

remexre 2y ago

For a comparison on the scale of harm from the monoculture, recall that SourceForge was bundling malware with downloads, and still has a full page of ads when you download from it. If I recall correctly, SVN was also more popular than Git at the time, so migrating hosts was a lot more painful than now...

BSDobelix 2y ago
And then you force people to change from google code to something else just to prove a point since people then where unable to setup svn server ;) Even today you find death links from google code repos.
bluGill 2y ago
SVN's model is what everyone is using. Sure you git, but almost nobody is using the distributed parts - they all sync to a central sever (github). SVN just could get user management, or merges right - those should be solvable problems but somehow were not. (I don't know enough about SVN to speculate on why they didn't)
- rswail 2y ago
  The main reason is that SVN's model of branching/tagging is based on directories in the working directory, whereas git's model (and to a certain extent, commercial SVNs like Clearcase and Perforce) is that branching/tagging is of the entire repository and not related to the file tree structure. This is a fundamental difference and the reason that git's model works much better when branching/merging.

DannyBee 2y ago

This was 2006 Google, which did stuff semi-altruistically all the time. At that point, SF was serving malware and stuff. It was really not a great time. Github became a monoculture years later when others folded. Google code was shut down in 2016. Github wasn't quite a monoculture then. I also said, back in 2014, that it might be necessary to do something like google code again in 5-10 years: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8605689 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8605689 10 years later, here we are i guess :) Though i think what i said then still holds - Github is not anywhere near as bad or unreliable as SF was.

BSDobelix 2y ago
SF served "malware" in 2013 NOT 2006: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge#Adware_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SourceForge#Adware_controversy After slashdot was purchased from condenast (i think?)
- naniwaduni 2y ago
  They had a bad name for the download pages being ad-infested even before they bundled the malware in the installers. (And yes, fake download buttons on a site serving binary downloads went exactly where you'd expect.)
  - BSDobelix 2y ago
    >fake download buttons Yes and today Ad-Sense (Google) took the Crown from being then biggest Scam AD's deploy-er. And really i don't think that's true before they where sold, ad's sure, scam/malware stuff? I don't think so...at least i cant remember.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  I mean, that's just when they did it fairly deliberately. Regardless, I think you would be hard pressed to argue SF was a great hosting environment when Google Code launched, which was the point.