Tmux has left SourceForge
github.com
github.com
UPDATE: wow, didn't know you can't even read messages without being google-user. Yeah, that's boorish a bit.
UPDATE2: turned out that's not true. You can read google group perfectly fine without signing in: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/tmux-users
http://groups.google.com/group/%(groupname)s/boxsubscribe?email=%(email)s
It works here with Firefox+noscript, but in w3m it messes up when you read an article and forces you to a "need JS" page. I might have added some other hack somewhere in FFx ages ago to get groups working that I've forgotten about.
This is awesome. Thank you for sharing. It's ugly, but who cares? Finally I can have more than one google groups window tab open and still have smooth scrolling without the javascript flailing around so hard my fans kick in.
My projects have been stuck on Google Groups for a long time, and I want to escape.
I can't think of a single unique or new thing GoDaddy has done in the past 10 years.
Not focusing on shareholders sounds great to me.
I really don't get the hate for GoDaddy. SourceForge, OTOH, are reprehensible.
Unlike GoDaddy their only upsell is for their paid CDN services.
I'm a happy customer, and I also used to work with the founder, Anthony Eden. He's a great guy, and so is the product.
The last company I worked for had all of their public domains registered through them. The funny thing they figured out was if they registered for a domain or a service, they would get all the way through the order, then wait a day before processing.
Like clockwork, the next day the sys admins would get a 30% off coupon for the stuff they had just started to sign up for the previous day.
It was an easy way to game the system, and made you wonder how over priced their stuff really was.
"The company lost $143 million last year. Granted that's less than the $200 million it lost in 2013, and the $279 million lost in 2012 -- but GoDaddy admits it hasn't turned a profit since 2009..."[1]
[1] http://www.zdnet.com/article/godaddy-ipo-to-value-company-at...
"Getting the Latest Stable OpenCV Version
Go to our page on Sourceforge;"
We moved revision control to github several years ago.
We just haven't had time lately to figure out what to do about the SF.net malware situation, but I can't imagine we'll stay there for too much longer, given the circumstances. We don't provide a Windows installer, so we're probably not at any immediate risk from SourceForge practices, but it doesn't seem like a smart place to be, given their behavior.
I just don't see how this is a trick. There's not even a "default" option here, except for the Accept button being on the right. How can anyone possibly click the word "Accept" without even glancing at the text surrounding it - even a glance shows you the giant icon with the slogan "Mac Cleaner Clean Up Junk Files on Your Mac"? If you look at the bullet points, the first one clearly identifies what it does. So it's an opt-in screen. There's no default. The action word is "Accept" and the top bullet is about the additional software you would be installing, with a giant picture and caption showing the same thing. Or you can click "skip."
This is above-board if you're going to do this sort of thing. Hell, given how above-board it is I might just click "Accept" in this case! (knowing that the devs opted into it as well.)
It is very, very hard to read this as anything other than an opt-in screen. How can you be any less ambiguous??
EDIT: I didn't even notice, there is even grey small text that spells this out in completely unambiguous words! (Thank you for considering this offer from our advertiser...your choice does not affect installation of FileZilla.)
I honestly don't even know that I would ask FileZilla to change anything whatsoever about this screen. It's great!
The only objective measure is "is this software required for what I'm installing"; clearly, in this case, MacKeeper fails. There is a degree of trickery, sure, but they are unequivocally trying to trick people into installing something other than what they intended.
> EDIT: I didn't even notice, there is even grey small text that spells this out in completely unambiguous words! (Thank you for considering this offer from our advertiser...your choice does not affect installation of FileZilla.)
Doesn't the fact that you didn't notice it make you at least pause?
I am ad tolerant. I do not run an ad blocker. If an ad is relevant to my interests I will click it. (I click maybe one ad every six months. I've never bought anything as the result of an ad.) And I loathe this kind of bundling.
We know that users are unable to read dialog boxes. Ask anyone who's worked in support about their experiences of getting people to read back an error message that's displayed on their screen. Every support channel on the Internet will ask people to post screenshots or to copy and paste the output.
IMO there should be an industry standard for how the screens should be worded, what they should look like, what buttons they can or can't include. Yes, we'd see many fewer people installing the malware but that's the point: no-one wants it. I tolerte ads but I see no reason to switch from Google supplied ads to some random adnetwork.
I should clarify that I was only referring to this screenshot - https://i.imgur.com/hNDdz4P.png - the other one is worse but I didn't notice ggp had an album of two (unless they changed it.) without the picture it would be a lot worse.
To be clear, I personally wouldn't mind advertising and installing software from an installer if some minimum criteria were met:
1. The software being advertised was actually checked by someone to confirm it had some use, and was not in fact detrimental to the users.
2. The accept/install button was not put in place of the button that moves the install process along normally.
3. A separate installer window was launched to make it obvious what was happening. No quiet background installs allowed.
What would be less ambiguous would be when you download an installer for an app then the installer installs that app and doesn't attempt to trick you in to "accept"ing what you think is the initial app install but is in fact an entirely different app.
If you really wanted to let them add apps people don't want then at the point of download an unchecked box could have an offer for unrelated software and that offer would state something like "software we're getting paid to have installed on your computer". That too would be unambiguous.
It's like someone offers you a bag of sweets and as you take them they say "you're fine with cryptosporidium" under their breath; you think they muttered some marketing slogan and instead you get ill from the sweets. Perfectly acceptable, you even had chance to find out what was in the sweets /s.
Aside: What's your startup?
Extremely distasteful.
When you ask someone about an irrelevant detail related to their status in the community while you are discussing something unrelated, it implies (quite strongly) that you are trying to change the topic from what is at hand to a comparison of credentials, and it also implies that you believe your credentials to be better in some way, somehow giving you an upper hand.
If you are truly independently curious about their startup, ask them separately.
But you were not (you admitted as much). So it's distasteful.
If you do google the specific thing being advertised (as I would if I wanted to know exactly what I was accepting) you would find something quite mixed. It has nothing to do with the format of the offer though (or with me.) It's like an ad. In the specific screenshot I linked, which is this one: https://i.imgur.com/hNDdz4P.png
Yes, I have no problem seeing offers in that specific format in my personal case as a consumer. No, I have nothing to do with any of these companies.
If one wants to ask a related question, ask a related question: "Do you bundle adware with any software that you distribute? If so, which software is that?"
An alternative I would consider "honest"? Hmm... "Support us by installing this bundled software" maybe.
And the fact that it is so unexpected is what makes this misleading. You're installing open-source software, on a mac, no less. You're expecting the bottom-right button to continue the installation. I don't know how you can't see how easily it is for a user to accidentally install this malware.
I actually installed the malware because I'd become so used to not dealing with this sort of stuff on my non-windows machines. The install process hijacks your browser by adding extensions, changing the search engines, blows away your prefs and cookies, installs some crap in the OS, etc. Huge pain in the butt. Totally my fault for just blindly bashing on the next button in the installer. I can assure you, the malware in Filezilla is quite real.
I maintain a ffmpeg build and two of codec code destinations are SF. lame and opencore-amr.
At work (Pootle), we're also moving our mailing lists away from Sourceforge. They were the last bit of SF we still used.
[2] https://onlinegroups.net/, https://onlinegroups.net/l/groupserver
Do you know if there's any plans to move away from SourceForge? If I was in charge of the project, I'm not sure what I'd do. Maybe move all active development to github, but not abandon the SF repo to malware injection?
I tried to find a mirror but couldn't. They link to Sourceforge from their official site.
It was never on sourceforge as far as I know. It was in Google Code and then later github
The downloads are still on SF, though. That's unfortunate.
It is one of the oldest software in the world.
If projects need to host binaries what are the best alternative to sourceforge?
[Yes it's literally a false dichotomy, I think my meaning is clear though.]
Those who keep sacrificing values tend to outcompete the ones who don't, and so the values end up being sacrificed regardless of however humans rationalize it to themselves while making decisions.
I'm not saying github will be around forever, but I highly doubt they'll make the same mistake sourceforge is making now.
Never say never. 15 years ago nobody would've dreamt SF would have gone this way.
Then I saw that famous talk by Linus on git in 2007 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8). Since I had never managed to get SVN working properly for me git was awesome. No server software to install. By the time I wanted to put up another project on the web Github was a thing and I used that. I never looked back, I loved how it was about the code, not how many installer downloads you had.
That for me was the main problem with sourceforge. In the end it was a game (for the devs) to get the most downloads because that was how your projects were judged and ranked. The Github "game" is slightly better and there are multiple ways to play.
Github could be sold, just like Sourceforge was sold, and the new owners could behave very differently from the current owners.
Small correction: it's not the "The market" that wants that, its the owner/investors/stock holders that want it.
Which is why I have an easier time trusting a small company owned by its founders, than a big, publicly traded company.
(Iirc github is still privately owned, but they have taken significant investments, so it's somewhere in between).
[1] https://gigaom.com/2014/12/05/github-gives-in-to-russian-cen...
> Will pull requests on GitHub now be allowed as a means of contributing patches?
> No, patches still need to come by email to me [Nicholas Marriott] or the ML.
I wonder, what's the main reason behind it? What's wrong with Github PRs?
People who only take patches by email are being jerks.
Generally there's a need to clean it up a bit and bang on it with some testing. I suppose that bigger projects can just bounce that back to the submitter to fix up and resubmit, but if a smaller project wants to encourage contributions the maintainers really need to do that.
There's also the point that projects with established mailing lists where patches are discussed probably don't want to move to github's web UI for those discussions.
It's pretty low-tech, but like plain text itself, it's also very easy to participate. There's no setup involved other than an email client. And rewrites don't require you to add more commits, thus cluttering history; or to `git push --force`, thus destroying the previous version of the patch that people had commented on. It's also trivial to cherry-pick and rebase: just apply the patch. You can do this even with a VCS that doesn't have rebase or cherry-pick commands.
There are definite advantages to the email-based system.
I wouldn't recommend it for FOSS projects. Unfortunately, there's not much alternative out there. I'm currently looking at Discourse, which has a mailing list mode. We might move to that.
I much prefer discourse or even GitHub issues.
But it doesn't stop there. I had endless problems with regular subscribers ending up as junk. Likewise, as a subscriber, I had several issues in the past with subscription, where I had to contact the owner of the list and "debug" the issue (like there's anything to debug really: it just goes to junk and there's nothing you can do).
It doesn't help that google groups doesn't show prominently the fact that it's a regular list you can subscribe to without creating any account.
Fortunately, google groups generally plays well with gmane.org, so as long as they don't screw that up, I couldn't care less.
The best WWW interface!
slrn or pan or almost any other newsreader were great.
There was Google Code, Landscape, or even self-hosted Git amongst others.
Without big news something so basic is probably not even on the table.
There's an automated Google Code to github migration tool.
Hopefully SF will not deem us to have abandoned the project either!
Small plug, but I suppose the only people reading these comments are interested in tmux: https://github.com/tmux-plugins
I usually download new tera term releases from there. (and of course ffftp)
I remember that the fist problem occurred to me that wasn't not solved by Google was solved by asking in the mailing list of tmux, and now it it moved to Github, I can finally ask question at the issue page.
Please ask support questions on StackOverflow, or the mailing list, or IRC. Not the issues page. It makes life much harder for the maintainer.
(God, I'm such a greybeard now)
https://github.com/tmux/tmux/commit/d2b35e19cdd61d163d26c4ba...
We are not the customers, we are the product.