LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Syndicated Linux News (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/syndicated-linux-news-67/)
-   -   LXer: Has SourceForge been judged unfairly? (https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/syndicated-linux-news-67/lxer-has-sourceforge-been-judged-unfairly-4175485431/)

LXer 11-21-2013 05:01 PM

LXer: Has SourceForge been judged unfairly?
 
Published at LXer:

Today in Open Source: Have some folks been unfair to SourceForge? Plus: MATE added to Debian repositories, and a screenshot tour of Angel Linux.

Read More...

John VV 11-21-2013 05:30 PM

unfair to SourceForge ?
yes and no

new people that are on Win7 or xp will get BUNDLED garbage crap-ware in the installer
and they will tell two friends and they will tell two.... and so on


word of mouth dose work when it is NEGATIVE

astrogeek 11-21-2013 05:40 PM

I was unaware of this so I read the story, followed the links and did a little further reading.

As I understand it, SF has implemented a 100% opt-in (by developer) with only 3 takers so far, which allows them to bundle 100% vetted software with 100% detailed removal instructions, with 100% disclosure, with selected binary only downloads.

It would be different if they were messing with the sources or sneaking things in unbeknownst to the user, but from what I have read, that does not appear to be the case.

It does not affect me as I do not run any M$ instances and would not download and install a binary anyway. For M$ users who must daily contend with a torrent of sneakware/spyware/crapware/malware/dirty-underwear, the full disclousre aspect is probably confusing and very suspicious looking!

Tempest in a tea-pot...

I am still a SF fan and think they are worth supporting.

TobiSGD 11-21-2013 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by astrogeek (Post 5068619)
As I understand it, SF has implemented a 100% opt-in (by developer) with only 3 takers so far, which allows them to bundle 100% vetted software with 100% detailed removal instructions, with 100% disclosure, with selected binary only downloads.

It would be different if they were messing with the sources or sneaking things in unbeknownst to the user, but from what I have read, that does not appear to be the case.

That is also what I got from reading about that. My conclusion: As long as users are informed before the download that there are 3rd party apps bundled I don't care. It is up to the user to decide if he wants that or rather uses a different download source, I will use SF the same way as I have before.

dugan 11-21-2013 06:57 PM

For the record, it was me who reported Flareget to Sourceforge and got it removed.

And if I recall correctly, they were hosting all sorts of binary-only crap in addition to that, at the time.

astrogeek 11-21-2013 07:02 PM

@dugan: I am not sure I understand the connection between Flareget and the bundling described by the article. I did not see them mentioned in anything I read related to this article.

Was Flareget reported because it was not open seource, or because it was bundling other software?

dugan 11-21-2013 07:05 PM

Not open source.

astrogeek 11-21-2013 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dugan (Post 5068660)
Not open source.

OK thanks.

Yea, I have seen several "projects" (aka marketing campaigns) appear on SF and other hosts as "open source", but were just more crapware. There is a lot of that going around...

John VV 11-21-2013 07:30 PM

I have been building programs from SF for the last 12 years
even on windows i avoided the binary installers

BUT
others do use those windows installers
and the IMPECCABLE REPUTATION once had got a black eye
-- fixable but will take time .


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 AM.