4 ms·

> GitHub has taken off like a rocket I think this is in part because they charge. I like this model. Its simple. You want to use GitHub for free then you ha

by Zelphyr 13y ago

> GitHub has taken off like a rocket I think this is in part because they charge. I like this model. Its simple. You want to use GitHub for free then you have to make your code freely available. You want to keep it proprietary then you have to pay for your account. Where this doesn't translate well with SourceForge is that it was designed from the start to be of, by, and for Open Source projects. So the vast majority of projects would be non-paying. However, they may be able to add some features that appeal to proprietary projects who are willing to pay and use that revenue to offset any losses. It would be hard work but ultimately I think it would be be better than the appearance (if indeed it is just that) of distributing malware.

rictic 13y ago
The vast majority of projects on github also do not pay. The two major features you pay for on github are larger repositories, and private repositories. The free offering is good enough for almost all open source projects.
- JohnTHaller 13y ago
  The big issue would be downloads when it comes to real apps, though. Github discontinued binary downloads in December of 2012. But, they then added the 'Releases' functionality last month. I don't think they'd put up with the large numbers of downloads (and the associated bandwidth) of big projects like FileZilla, though.
  - pjhyett 13y ago
    If those projects are looking for a new home, we'd be happy to welcome them at GitHub.
    - JohnTHaller 13y ago
      From a quick look, SourceForge pushed out about 19TB of FileZilla bandwidth in the last 30 days in terms of binary downloads. I'm not sure any projects on GitHub are pushing that kind of bandwidth for binary downloads yet. Or are they? In terms of PortableApps.com, I don't think we'd be a good fit for GitHub since we're a project that's a conglomeration of apps made portable (for USB and cloud use). I think we're around 90TB of bandwidth for downloads in the last month for our open source apps via SourceForge (some of our open source apps the publishers self-host like Inkscape and LibreOffice so we don't push those through our SourceForge project).
      - hash9 13y ago
        You can get 100TB/month for under €100 on Leaseweb. Couldn't you raise this in donations each month? I'm sure with your traffic it'd be possible.
        JohnTHaller 13y ago
        I generally don't trust anything that sells 'unmetered' bandwidth as it nearly always ends in disaster. Their metered accounts seem to be 10TB for $95 which is about what we're paying for freeware downloads now (we can't host those on SourceForge, of course).
    - michaelt 13y ago
      PortableApps.com on sourceforge reports they had 943799 downloads last month. Popular files include Firefox portable (20mb) and chrome portable (2mb). Assuming the average download is half way between those (10mb) you're looking at about 480,000 GB of downloads a year. If you store that on S3 you'll be looking at about $46,800 of bandwidth charges a year. Surprisingly expensive business.
      - JohnTHaller 13y ago
        Quite true. The total is quite a bit higher as some popular apps like GIMP (136,000 downloads in the last month) are 64MB and July and August are our slowest months. Additionally, apps like Inkscape are hosted on their own SourceForge project and LibreOffice is hosted by The Document Foundation (not included in the above numbers). Then there's all the freeware we host elsewhere that doesn't show in the SourceForge stats (which we pay the bandwidth on). All told, I think we're easily exceeding a petabyte a year. I used to actually keep those stats, maybe I should look into it again.
mcgwiz 13y ago
I agree. Along with that I'd add that they've taken off because of their expert marriage of the concepts of social networking with open source development, to harness Metcalfe's Law. By providing such a good social experience, they've pulled all developers into the fold. Once there, they have their foot in the door (doors?) whenever it comes time for private SCM. It's a great strategy pulled off well. That seems to be SF's existential problem. What's their strategy? Adware installers are certainly interesting, perhaps even "innovative", but seem to be a near-term monetization tactic that doesn't address the strategic problem of community stagnanation. What happens in the hypothetical situation when all the big projects die or leave (perhaps because they've become so successful they can now support their own infrastructure costs)?
mindcrime 13y ago
I think this is in part because they charge. I like this model. Its simple. You want to use GitHub for free then you have to make your code freely available. You want to keep it proprietary then you have to pay for your account. Agreed. I was a happy user of GitHub for solely public (free) repos, since all our startup projects are OSS. But as soon as we ran into the need for repos for private internal projects, or OSS stuff that we aren't ready to announce yet and want to keep private, it was a very natural, and seamless, process for us to sign up for a paid GitHub account. GitHub have, IMO, found a nice sweet spot in terms of taking advantage of the "freemium" model. And it's one paid service I totally don't mind paying for in the slightest. It just feels like they really got it right with their model. That said, we don't need a large number of private repositories in our model. I know some people prefer BitBucket's model, if they need a larger number of private repos.
quadrangle 13y ago
> You want to use GitHub for free then you have to make your code freely available. Clarification: they do not offer gratis service based on free code, they offer gratis service based on public code. If you are public, it's no charge, even if you are using a proprietary license.

by Zelphyr 13y ago

rictic 13y ago

The vast majority of projects on github also do not pay. The two major features you pay for on github are larger repositories, and private repositories. The free offering is good enough for almost all open source projects.

JohnTHaller 13y ago
The big issue would be downloads when it comes to real apps, though. Github discontinued binary downloads in December of 2012. But, they then added the 'Releases' functionality last month. I don't think they'd put up with the large numbers of downloads (and the associated bandwidth) of big projects like FileZilla, though.
- pjhyett 13y ago
  If those projects are looking for a new home, we'd be happy to welcome them at GitHub.
  - JohnTHaller 13y ago
    From a quick look, SourceForge pushed out about 19TB of FileZilla bandwidth in the last 30 days in terms of binary downloads. I'm not sure any projects on GitHub are pushing that kind of bandwidth for binary downloads yet. Or are they? In terms of PortableApps.com, I don't think we'd be a good fit for GitHub since we're a project that's a conglomeration of apps made portable (for USB and cloud use). I think we're around 90TB of bandwidth for downloads in the last month for our open source apps via SourceForge (some of our open source apps the publishers self-host like Inkscape and LibreOffice so we don't push those through our SourceForge project).
    - hash9 13y ago
      You can get 100TB/month for under €100 on Leaseweb. Couldn't you raise this in donations each month? I'm sure with your traffic it'd be possible.
      - JohnTHaller 13y ago
        I generally don't trust anything that sells 'unmetered' bandwidth as it nearly always ends in disaster. Their metered accounts seem to be 10TB for $95 which is about what we're paying for freeware downloads now (we can't host those on SourceForge, of course).
  - michaelt 13y ago
    PortableApps.com on sourceforge reports they had 943799 downloads last month. Popular files include Firefox portable (20mb) and chrome portable (2mb). Assuming the average download is half way between those (10mb) you're looking at about 480,000 GB of downloads a year. If you store that on S3 you'll be looking at about $46,800 of bandwidth charges a year. Surprisingly expensive business.
    - JohnTHaller 13y ago
      Quite true. The total is quite a bit higher as some popular apps like GIMP (136,000 downloads in the last month) are 64MB and July and August are our slowest months. Additionally, apps like Inkscape are hosted on their own SourceForge project and LibreOffice is hosted by The Document Foundation (not included in the above numbers). Then there's all the freeware we host elsewhere that doesn't show in the SourceForge stats (which we pay the bandwidth on). All told, I think we're easily exceeding a petabyte a year. I used to actually keep those stats, maybe I should look into it again.

mcgwiz 13y ago

I agree. Along with that I'd add that they've taken off because of their expert marriage of the concepts of social networking with open source development, to harness Metcalfe's Law. By providing such a good social experience, they've pulled all developers into the fold. Once there, they have their foot in the door (doors?) whenever it comes time for private SCM. It's a great strategy pulled off well. That seems to be SF's existential problem. What's their strategy? Adware installers are certainly interesting, perhaps even "innovative", but seem to be a near-term monetization tactic that doesn't address the strategic problem of community stagnanation. What happens in the hypothetical situation when all the big projects die or leave (perhaps because they've become so successful they can now support their own infrastructure costs)?

mindcrime 13y ago

I think this is in part because they charge. I like this model. Its simple. You want to use GitHub for free then you have to make your code freely available. You want to keep it proprietary then you have to pay for your account. Agreed. I was a happy user of GitHub for solely public (free) repos, since all our startup projects are OSS. But as soon as we ran into the need for repos for private internal projects, or OSS stuff that we aren't ready to announce yet and want to keep private, it was a very natural, and seamless, process for us to sign up for a paid GitHub account. GitHub have, IMO, found a nice sweet spot in terms of taking advantage of the "freemium" model. And it's one paid service I totally don't mind paying for in the slightest. It just feels like they really got it right with their model. That said, we don't need a large number of private repositories in our model. I know some people prefer BitBucket's model, if they need a larger number of private repos.

quadrangle 13y ago

> You want to use GitHub for free then you have to make your code freely available. Clarification: they do not offer gratis service based on free code, they offer gratis service based on public code. If you are public, it's no charge, even if you are using a proprietary license.