What is the advantage of using Sourceforge these days when github and bitbucket are free for open source?
Also, trying to delete an abandoned project, which had a mailing list, but it wouldn't let me delete the mailing list, because there was still an admin in there (me!), and I couldn't leave the mailing list, because then it would have been without admin. D'uh. And you couldn't delete a project with an active mailing list...
Then a few years later, after I didn't use SF much anymore, I tried to comment on the bug in the bug tracker, and didn't find any option to do that, even as a logged-in user.
I used google code as soon as it became available, because it worked, and had a much cleaner admin interface. Not to mention user interface.
I imagine the author figures that moving is a pain.
Don't forget, Sourceforge was the Github of yesteryear. I imagine in 10 years we may very well be asking the same of some old project hosted on Github.
Not really.
At that time, there were almost no alternatives. Sourceforge was slow and bloated, even without ads. Nobody wanted to use it, but at least it was free (in the sense of free beer).
And it took them ages to support SVN in addition to CVS. When they finally supported it, many project were already thinking about switching from SVN to a distributed VCS.
How do you figure? It was "the way" to share your OSS project in its time. It wasn't great, but it was the best we had.
Nobody questions that.
But that doesn't quality for "the GitHub of that time", because most people like to use GitHub, so the analogy is incomplete in some essential aspects.
Firstly, they're well-known by now to be complicit in sponsored 'wrapper' installers bundling some pretty awful stuff - check out what they did with FileZilla - which is an even more intrusive advertising practice than that.
Secondly, they host a lot of executable code (and don't forget build scripts in source code, unless you check your Makefiles!), but they still don't use TLS, and don't even seem to have any plans to - which is by now negligent practice, I think, considering the widespread public knowledge of Hacking Team's (and GCHQ's) at-scale deployments of network-level file infectors.
Install docs: https://forge-allura.apache.org/docs/getting_started/install...
I agree that sourceforge.net as a service might not be my favourite, but Allura the forge-software seems pretty good. I think the only thing that comes close is the stack from Canonical -- but Allura seems more viable to self-host (and scale up when needed -- rather than "only a vm" or "full cluster"). It also seems less "overly opinionated", and still includes sensible defaults (contrast with getting up and running with Trac).
YMMV, but it doesn't look half-bad. Right now I don't need anything more than what you can easily get with either a separate wiki+mercurial+mailing-list, "just" trac or fossil -- but for something in-between "too big to host internally" and "too complex for Trac to be easy" -- it looks rather interesting. I'd love to hear any war stories.
There's an up to date clone on GitHub at https://github.com/ThomasAdam/tmux
Can't send patches to it, but it's great if you're just building it.
That is, WinSCP has an own website that contains ads with fake download buttons. It's really nasty, but at least the advertisement payments go directly to the project, rather than just to the hosting service.
Basically, it looks like the developers don't see any benefit to migrating that outweighs the cost of a migration. [1]
There is a GitHub mirror [2] maintained by, I think, one of the developers, but they don't accept pull requests.
It's interesting to note that, for such a popular project like tmux, there are so few contributors. [3] Five, to be exact.
Maybe that's an artifact of how the mirroring to GitHub works (perhaps the commit authors aren't translated correctly?), but I suspect it's more an artifact of an outdated contribution process and tooling.
[0] http://sourceforge.net/p/tmux/mailman/search/?q=github
[1] http://sourceforge.net/p/tmux/mailman/message/33826395/
So I guess something just didn't translate correctly to Thomas's GitHub mirror.
As to why I use Adblock, I've never. Not once. Ever. Bought anything from an ad on a website. I _have_ bought books and such from the referral links on blogs (which adblock doesn't block).
The reason I use adblock is because I'm not the demographic ads on websites are targeting. So websites aren't losing any revenue by me not seeing their ads.
The "sometimes" you talk about should just be with ads on. it won't hurt much, because it's just sometimes.
This is exactly why I use adblock.
Marketers estimate the CPI they're willing to pay based on estimated conversions per impression. Ultimately, the money comes from sales. It always comes from sales.
If I don't ever purchase anything from a website ad, my impressions are worth zero. My impressions, and impressions by those like me, will drive down the price a company is willing to pay per impression since the conversion ratio also goes down. In fact, my impressions incur a negative effect since it still incurs a cost to the advertiser.
In the best of all possible worlds, only those who will ultimately buy a product are displayed the ad. Resulting in a 100% conversion ratio. Each impression would be maximally valuable and the price paid for that impression would rise to reflect that.
Those of us who use adblock have removed ourself from the market and from the conversion ratio calculations and cost per impression to the advertiser.
Maybe I'm apathetic to these arguments because I'm quite comfortable paying for content and services, and I'm comfortable with a version of the web where a paying class gets to have paying-class products. If the public feels there should be a free thing, then let it be funded by taxes.
What do you gain by blocking adverts? An extra 150K from your data plan?
>websites aren't losing any revenue by me not seeing their ads.
This argument is a little too close to justifying piracy for my liking. "I wasn't going to buy it anyway, so it's fine"
...a lack of adverts?
> This argument is a little too close to justifying piracy for my liking.
Except it's within everyone's rights to decide how their computers will render a given piece of markup.
Do you also think not buying a Toyota is a little too close to car theft?
Quicker page loads, avoiding seizure inducing ads that are designed to attract your attention in an overly aggressive way, better visibility of text because it's not surrounded by flashy pictures, animations and videos. Plus avoiding Flash/Java/JS ads poisoned with malicious content.
And, oh yeah, and ~150K that won't hit my data plan.
For the record, I don't block all ads. I have sites that I allow them on because I am a frequent user and their ads are not too obnoxious to deal with. If my page views (never clicks though) help them then great! But I surf with the blocker on by default for the reasons laid out above.
or http://scribblestrum.livejournal.com/88086.html for those without a New Yorker sub.
So then, I'll unblock ads to help companies survive just as soon as those companies start giving me money to help me survive.
With an ad blocker, you selectively block the javascript you don't like but that the operators rely on to bring in revenue, while still getting the otherwise 'full' experience.
Since obviously I'd still be able to get tmux, what value is sourceforge actually providing me? They might be providing tmux developers some value, but they aren't providing any value to me.
Or that ponzu schemes are okay as long as you yourself don't have to deal with them.