

SourceForge Gets A Makeover - sant0sk1
http://sourceforge.net/

======
moe
This makes me feel old because I can honestly not remember whether SF has
always been the steaming pile of sh __t 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.

~~~
erlanger
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.

~~~
moe
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?

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

~~~
moe
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?

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

------
evdawg
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.

~~~
Sephr
It's just SourceForge's attempt to be _what you need, when you need it_.

~~~
albertcardona
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.

------
jamesbritt
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?

------
pmichaud
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.

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

------
patio11
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...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2009/03/07/how-to-successfully-compete-with-
open-source-software/))

Compare their old download page:

[http://www.bingocardcreator.com/blog-images/download-what-
ag...](http://www.bingocardcreator.com/blog-images/download-what-again.png)

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...](http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=148249&package_id=163575&release_id=370153)

versus

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

~~~
moe
_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.

------
jasonkester
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.

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

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

------
buugs
It looks like one of those popular shareware sites.

------
catone
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>

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

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

Still blurry for me... ah well.

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

------
technomancy
Only 5630 commits today? Yikes!

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

------
blhack
Am I the only one getting a 500?

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

------
bmelton
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.

~~~
moe
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.

------
perezd
reminds me of a certain hub, that uses git.

