[novas0x2a]

While I don't really approve of the anti-sourceforge attitude, I do understand it; when SF had essentially a monopoly on open source project storage, they chose to milk it and rest on their laurels rather than improve themselves. People complained about how SF broke wget with their download portals for something like four years before SF did something about it. SF's forced review of every project creation (and their gigantic delay in doing so) had a strong chilling effect on open source project creation in general.

A lazy monopoly has a way of generating extreme hatred due to the impotent rage of the people that use it because they have no other option. SF may have drastically improved in the presence of competition, but it's no surprise that some people are still angry.

[astrodust]

Github has almost single-handedly fixed things that SourceForge never, ever got around to doing, and they've done it in remarkably little time.

I used to dread going to any project that was hosted on SourceForge, hate it like going to the dentist for something to get drilled, and while it's a bit better, it's still an awful, uncomfortable experience. When I see a project hosted on SourceForge I only click the link with a heavy sigh.

Why do I "hate" SourceForge? It's because they got complacent, and because they never changed. It was like SourceForge was more important than you and you better not forget it. How many clicks was it to do something as simple as set up a new project? How many forms and emails do you need to fill out or reply to? How annoying was the distribution model, or how ugly was a project page? All these things were important but nobody cared.

That Github was able to turn around block and report so quickly is evidence that they get it, they're listening, and they aren't afraid to hustle and do what's right. Nothing is hard on Github. It is as easy as it should be. I gladly spend money on Github every month. Sourceforge couldn't pay me to use it.

[kijinbear]

Reminds me of Microsoft in the pre-Firefox, pre-Chrome days. It is extremely difficult for someone who has a virtual monopoly to innovate and listen to its users all the time. We can't just assume that it won't happen to X because X has something to do with open-source.

I really hope that the rise of GitHub and similar competitors provokes SourceForge to innovate again.

[ghurlman]

> when SF had essentially a monopoly on open source project storage, they chose to milk it and rest on their laurels rather than improve themselves

Exactly. They are, like it or not, the Internet Explorer 6 of the open source hosting world.

[lurker14]

Wait, wait, wait.

SF has a" monopoly" and a "chilling effect" that makes you "angry", because their completely free service was not good enough for someone?

What does Sourceforge owe anyone?

[akkartik]

No, you wait.

Sourceforge owes nobody anything. And we don't owe it anything either. So don't mind us if we don't help fix SF.

Github is as 'completely free' as sourceforge. Firefox is as 'completely free' as internet explorer. So yes, it does make sense to use 'completely free' and 'not good enough' in the same sentence.