It’s short for Source Forge which is still around technically but a shadow of its former self.
I'm contributing to someone's software that started as an academic project. The current version is on GitHub with history back to 2014 but early releases back to 2008 (from before the author started using version control) are on SF in the form release_1.0.tgz, release_1.1.tgz, etc. I stumbled on these old versions this weekend while looking for related material. Once I decompressed them I found that they contained notes and old code that really helps to understand the current project's evolution and structure.
It is super hard to break through a two-sided market but it is possible when a competitor has given up entirely on competition, which might have happened in the SourceForge case because the money situation was so dire they couldn't afford to invest in it.
...lowest CPM of anything except maybe anime fan sites.
I am skeptical of claims that “advertisers want to target young people because they have a lifetime of consumption ahead of them”. Maybe that is true of Proctor and Gamble (who expect to still be selling Dawn and Tide 50 years from now) but few advertisers are thinking ahead more than one quarter, if that —- particularly in the internet age where an ad click can be tracked to a transaction.
People today will say all the ads on TV target oldsters because only oldsters watch TV but circa 2000 there was no streaming and watching TV made me think “I want to die before I get old” because there were so many ads for drugs and embarrassing health conditions and personal injury lawyers and relatively little for things you would spend your own money on because not a lot of people in the audience have money to spend particularly after paying the cable bill.
This post's overview of contributing to Open Source is largely correct. You'd get the source tarball for a project, make some changes, and then e-mail the author/maintainer witch a patch. Despite the post's claim Open Source existed long before 1998.
Rarely did Internet randos have any access to a project's VCS. A lot of "projects" (really just a program written by a single person) didn't even have meaningful VCS, running CVS or RVS were skills unto themselves. There was also the issue that a lot of Open Source was written by students and hosted on school servers or an old Linux box in a dorm.
SourceForge came along riding the first Internet bubble. They let a lot of small FOSS projects go legit by giving them a project homepage without a .edu domain or tilde in it. They also got a managed VCS (CVS at first then Subversion later) and contact e-Mail addresses, forums, and other bits that made the lives of Linux distro and BSD ports maintainers much easier. They also had a number of mirror sites which enabled a level of high availability most projects could never have had previously.
Then SourceForge's enshitification began as bubble money ran out. The free tier of features was decreased and then they started bundling AdWare into Windows installers. SourceForge would literally repackage a Windows installer to install the FOSS application and some bullshit AdWare, IIRC a browser toolbar was a major one.
As the officially upstream source for FOSS projects bundled for package managers the AdWare wasn't much of a problem. But SourceForge was the distribution channel for a significant amount of Windows FOSS apps like VLC, MirandaIM, and a bunch of P2P apps which were impacted by the AdWare bundling at various points.
A GitHub founder patting themselves on the back for the success of GitHub is sort of funny because GitHub followed a similar track to SourceForge but got bought by Microsoft instead of a company coasting on VC money. I can easily imagine a world where an independent GitHub enshittified had they not been bought by a money fountain.
It did not. Free software did. The term "open source" was coined by Christine Peterson at a meeting in January of 1998, as Netscape was contemplating releasing their source code as free software. The Open Source Initiative was founded a month later, and forked the Debian Free Software Guidelines, written by one of the OSI founders, Bruce Perens. This was a deliberate marketing exercise, both to avoid the unfortunate "as in beer" connotations of free software, and to distance the concept from the FSF and Richard Stallman.
All of this is well documented.
> Most of you kids probably don’t remember a time where there weren’t millions of open source projects around, but the phrase was only coined in 1998.
100% and unambiguously true.
Open source software existed before 1998. I don't know why you're trying to quibble about the exact branding, just because the Open Source Software term wasn't coined until a certain date doesn't mean that is the start of all software with open licenses or people publicly releasing the source of their software. The GPL, MIT, and BSD licenses are all from the 80s.
You said this:
> Despite the post's claim Open Source existed long before 1998.
I've illustrated two things: it is not true that the term "open source" existed before 1998, and, the Fine Article's claim is, to quote it again:
> Most of you kids probably don’t remember a time where there weren’t millions of open source projects around, but the phrase was only coined in 1998.
That is, it is explicitly a claim about the phrase, meaning no possible interpretation of your expressed contradiction of the article can be correct.
All of your points could have been made without incorrectly stating that the author was wrong. In that case I would have upvoted and moved on.
Part of the enshittification story is the tragedy of the non-profitable site that has a large user base. Here is a recent example
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41463734
Potentially investments in a site could have huge leverage because of the existing user base.
I (and most of my team) lost our jobs at one of the most well-loved open accessing publishing sites in the world because of a complex chain of events that was rooted in the site not having a sustainable funding source despite the fact that it was fantastically cheap to run if you divided the budget by the number of daily users. Fortunately they figured it all out and the site is still here and if you work in physics, math or cs you probably used it today.
Still it was painful to see “new shiny” projects that had 4x the funding but 1% the user count at most, or to estimate we could save users $500M a year with a $500k budget.
Thus you can overthrow SourceForge but cannot overthrow something profitable and terrible such as Facebook, Match.com or the “blob” of review sites that dominate Google, see
Can you provide an example?
GitHub could have easily enshittified in an effort to make money had they not been bought by someone with deep pockets.
I believe GitHub's underlying use of the Git SCM, as well as the interface that allowed web users to look at "pull requests" as a concept was the real value in GitHub, far before hosting binaries or attracting the attention of Microsoft. The attraction to Microsoft was the ability to pull in the growing network of git users, the popularity of GitHub to a growing number of developers, and the ability to integrate the service into their developer offerings (this was the key that would have made the other two "positives" worthless to them).
I think any tool or technology you should have an "out", in case another corporation/company takes over and doesn't align with your values. Being stuck on SourceForge, Google Code, GitHub, Bitbucket, etc. is a recipe to lock yourself into being put down to pasture because you couldn't adapt and realize that there is a huge world out there, and tools and tech come and go. Always have something as an alternative for whatever you do, because things change too quickly, plus you get another point of view with solving problems (if that's your thing, and you aren't just developing for the money, which is fine if you can admit it to yourself). The fact that you are able to dive back into time with SourceForge tells me you are one of those people that have been into technology since pre-dot com bust, but probably got burned by Microsoft in some form. I'm not defending Microsoft for their past practices, only coming at this from what they have done with GitHub to this point. Hopefully I'm not wrong, but I do have a plan in place in case I am, and I think that's the most important thing in software.
To be clear I'm not trying to be down on GitHub here. They made a good product and a very good alternative to SourceForge. I think they just got lucky getting bought by Microsoft when they did. By 2018 I think they'd gotten to the point where their costs would have required to start chasing revenue.
I suppose I would call what I saw "Grayware" [1], which is debatably not malware (but debatably is, too). It was enough of a smell for me to stop using their site, though. I'd actually just forego software I was seeking out from them instead.
As for the Windows fear, I understand that. That was me 10+ years ago, and I _am_ less knowledgable at helping people with Windows these days. I can still figure some things out by searching, and "I couldn't figure it out after 5-10 minutes" has turned out to be an acceptable answer too sometimes :)
Was there ever a point in time where it wasn't something that basically sucked? For some reason there are still some widely used ham radio packages that are hosted on sourceforge and it annoys me greatly. When you click the big green "Download" for the project you get.... .... a dll file. Why? Because the actual release artifact is some other zip file and for some reason it doesn't deserve the "Big Green Download" button.
SF has always been this bad. Their core data model just doesn't jive with how people actually interact with open source projects.
... and for that matter didn't they stir up some controversy a long while ago for tampering with project artifacts and adding extra "stuff" in them? (spyware / nagware / **ware?)
It looks almopst impossible today, but launching a service was really hard and expensive back then. It cost a lot of money/effort in just software. All that stuff you can just download and it actually works? No way man, didn't exist yet.
That is why LAMP stack was so great back then, it was free, working and reasonably low-maintenence and super easy to set-up.
Yeah, when it launched it was cool and hip. Free public CVS server to host your open source cool project was cool. Probably went downhill as the ad market fell apart post dot-com, and the only way to get revenue was big green download buttons.