SourceForge Gets A Makeover | Hacker News Reader

SourceForge Gets A Makeover

sourceforge.net

48 pointssant0sk134 comments

This makes me feel old because I can honestly not remember whether SF has always been the steaming pile of sht it is today (before and after the redesign) or whether there was a brief period back in 200? where it was genuinely usable.

I do remember that at some point in history the downloads worked as expected with curl and wget. Then they invented the idiotic spoiler page with microscopic download links and for a long time the URLs were not working with wget (this has been fixed about a year ago, iirc - the idiotic spoiler page is still there, though).

I also remember that the mailing list archives and bugtrackers have always been as unusable as they still seem to be.

All I can say is: Die sourceforge, please just die. The days when "free CVS" was an argument are over. For as long as I can remember I have cringed in agony whenever I stumbled into yet another sourceforge download page. They are the plague. The new lipstick doesn't help at all. It just happens that the site that always felt like those shareware scams now also looks like one.

It's 2009, we have github, launchpad, google code and a dozen other OSS hosting providers. All of them beat SF hands down. Please don't use sourceforge. Thanks.

A while back (2002-200...4?), the site looked good. However, it was a usability nightmare from a development standpoint. I remember writing a script to queue CVS commits and do it when the commit side of the repos was actually working. There were times when you couldn't commit for days on end, and it was rare to have a week where you didn't have at least one day that it was effectively completely down.

Now the site works well for developers, except it's completely unusable for end-users. Come on, guys, get your act together.

I actually prefer if a download links to SF because the files are always there. Like with Google Code and some other providers, you know what you're getting.

What do you mean "the files are always there"?

I have never had a problem with any of the other providers in that regard either, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say?

You can't tell me you've never been to an obscure/old open source project's website with broken download links before...

Well, ofcourse I have but hey, I like it.

Broken download links tell me: This project is abandoned, nobody even cares enough to update the links, stay away, don't waste your time.

This didn't ever happen with google code and the ilk to me, mind you, but only during those desperate "feeling lucky" google searches. Yes the sourceforge links may still work, but who wants a tarball from 2001?

Perhaps someone who would find useful ideas in the source and apply it to their own OSS projects?

Unfortunately, downloads are one of the things that broke recently :-(

I work on the egonet project: http://sourceforge.net/projects/egonet/

The latest release was on June 25. Yesterday the big "download now" button was offering the May 30 release. Today it is offering the April 20 release. Yesterday I was at least able to look at the settings page to confirm that we had correctly set the June 25 release as the main download, but now I can't even find that.

In my opinion it's a step back. It looks like a cross between a domain squatting splash page and one of those sleazy software download sites.

So while not terrible... I feel like it's a desperate and rushed "look at me" attempt at a redesign.

i think that long list of light-blue links along the left side gives it that feel of being a parked domain.

It's just SourceForge's attempt to be what you need, when you need it.

Looking back, I used to peruse lots of sourceforge pages. Not any more: the music [I care about] has moved on to github, or.cz, and custom pages.

No, considering how important SF is, it's pretty terrible.

It is quite amazing how sf.net has managed to get worse with every redesign, even more amazing having in mind how awful the original design was.

The still persist with the stupidest naming of download URLs I've ever seen.

If I see a link that ends with "/SomeFile.tgz", with text that says "download", I damn well expect that there is a .tgz file at the other end. I damn well expect I can copy that link and use it with wget.

But not on SourceForge; oh no, that would be too simple, direct, and user-friendly. Instead, that .tgz link goes to some "now we'll see about getting you a REAL download link" page.

Seriously, WTF is with that?

This is really bad. The home page is like being kicked in the eye -- where do I look? What can I interact with?

This was, not surprisingly, either designed by a programmer, or designed by a person who had to answer to a programmer.

Hmm, maybe it's just me, but that blue-highlighted search box is asking to be used.

I'm on record as saying that SourceForge's UI was a crime against non-technical users, but I think it has improved in some respects. (My old comments are halfway down this article about competing with OSS: http://www.kalzumeus.com/2009/03/07/how-to-successfully-comp...)

Compare their old download page:

http://www.bingocardcreator.com/blog-images/download-what-ag...

with their new download page:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/bingocardmaker/files/

It is now MUCH cleaner, with obvious visual cues as to what you need to hit to download the file.

The download button which automatically selects your OS & etc on the front page for each project is another win for non-technical users.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/bingo-cards/

If anything the button could be doubled in size, but the positioning, color, and size clearly draw your eye to it as soon as you open the page.

(This is one of the first times I have seen Sourceforge conscientiously optimize for the experience of the passive user of software rather than the developer. I find that overdue since passive users outnumber developers by four or more orders of magnitude.)

They've also made some changes to their URLs which will be good for SEO and usability. Compare the before/after on download pages:

http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=148249...

versus

http://sourceforge.net/projects/bingocardmaker/files/

I'm on record as saying that SourceForge's UI was a crime against non-technical users

I'll say it's a crime against all users, technical and non-technical alike. SourceForge is the textbook example of how to not do it.

This is one of the first times I have seen Sourceforge conscientiously optimize for the experience of the passive user of software rather than the developer

Excuse me but if you seriously claim that SF has ever been "optimized" for developers then please share some of that stuff you're smoking - must be damn good.

I just looked at the ticket trackers and mailing list archives. They seem to be exactly the same as before - only with a new, glossy stylesheet. Exactly the same means that they are still the worst implementation that I have ever seen. Perhaps the worst implementation that was ever created. Many people cite bugzilla for a hostile UI. SF is worse, much worse.

The ridiculously flawed download page has been mentioned plenty of times - and hasn't changed either with the new design.

So, what's left?

The homepage link (you know, the one to the actual project homepage, where most people want to go first) is still microscopic. The old placebo links that everyone has learned are not worth clicking are still the same (Why is there a "documentation" link when there is no documentation?).

The wiki, oh... you have a wiki. First time I see that, and at a glance I don't think I want to see it again...

Well, I could go on for a while but it's not worth it because all of this is so stupidly obvious. It's not rocket science. Look at what the others do. Look at http://launchpad.net. None of the other services is perfect, mind you, they all have their flaws and rough edges. But there we are talking about flaws and edges on an otherwise usable product. SF on the other hand is not even a base to build on. Some of the backend code may be re-usable but the frontend is toxic waste, broken beyond repair.

It has always been that way btw. SF was crap from the get-go and never changed. People beared with it in the early days because they were the first offering of this kind (afaik) and hey, free CVS is free CVS.

But that was almost 10 years ago. We have better options today.

PS: Sorry for saying "you" all the time. You are probably not affiliated with SF. It just came out that way and I'm now too lazy to go back and fix it. - It's ofcourse not aimed at you personally but only at SF.

One huge improvement is the prominent download link on the homepage of every project, linked directly to an installer for your operating system (or the nearest thing the project offers to that).

That was the single worst usability problem with SourceForge in the past, the need to dig thru 5 levels of download screens, navigate a collapsable tree and find a little link just to download and install the software.

Less emphasis on programmers contributing source code. More emphasis on lay users looking for useful software. I'd call this a step in the right direction.

At least the main download links on project pages are now HUEG and neon green.

I agree, I like the new product pages - (specific download pages) but the home page is trying to be everything to everyone

It looks like one of those popular shareware sites.

Is it just me or is the search button blurry? It's making me feel drunk, which, when browsing for open source software really isn't a great way to feel.

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3953/blurrysf.jpg

Not blurry for me. Are you running on Windows with ClearType(TM) activated?

Nah. I'm using Firefox 3.5 on a Mac (OS X 10.5.7).

Still blurry for me... ah well.

I'm slightly disappointed that the top 5 downloaded programs are all file-sharing tools.

Only 5630 commits today? Yikes!

The search button makes me want to gouge my eyes out.

Am I the only one getting a 500?

is the search box text supposed to be light gray on white?

Is the freshmeat redesign recent as well? I was on yesterday and, while I hadn't been on in awhile, noticed that I could no longer (in any obvious way) browse by license, which I used to do.

Rather recent yes, I think it's a few months old.

I'm a bit torn on that one. I think the move to tags makes sense (the categories never worked well) but overall I liked the old stylesheet and layout much better.

In a nutshell I would say the freshmeat.net UI went from "great" to "bearable". There's just way too much visual clutter now, whereas the old layout was amazingly clean and straightforward.

reminds me of a certain hub, that uses git.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com