
GIMP Windows Installers move from Sourceforge to ftp.gimp.org - uladzislau
http://www.gimp.org/?
======
mathrawka
The link in the article sums up the "what happened to Sourceforge" pretty
well: [http://www.gluster.org/2013/08/how-far-the-once-mighty-
sourc...](http://www.gluster.org/2013/08/how-far-the-once-mighty-sourceforge-
has-fallen/)

The OSS project I maintained for several years was always in the top 10
downloaded lists on Sourceforge, but I got frustrated with how things were
going and eventually moved the code to Github and hosted a simple website on
my own.

Honestly, I can't think of a reason why an OSS project would choose
Sourceforge in this day and age.

~~~
JohnTHaller
That article gets a lot of things very wrong as I pointed out when it was
posted on HN last time (you'll see my comment at the top):
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6262347](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6262347)

Github is an option for some folks but not for us. We need solid file hosting
with lots of bandwidth (pushing well over 50TB a month at SF) that will be
sticking around next month and next year. In my comment linked above, I
mention that Github ditched binary downloads (they did last year). In the
ensuing discussion, it was pointed out that Github added the feature back in
this year as 'Releases'. It remains to be seen if the feature will stick
around, though, and I wouldn't put my all my eggs in that basket. When Github
discontinued binary downloads last year, users were offered no alternative.
So, it's not inconceivable that Github would pull the binary hosting feature
again in the future as they stabilize their product offerings. SourceForge has
been serving our binaries for 7 years now.

~~~
jeswin
You should then consider a better host. SourceForge is clearly a scamware host
now; maybe ever since Dice.com took over. And to be honest, just seeing a file
hosted on SourceForge casts doubts on the quality of the app.

\- Most users just click OK for installers, it is like the EULA

\- I am yet to see a toolbar that does anything useful to anybody; other than
make their system slower and buggy. I hold a very low opinion of people (like
Ask.com) who bundle things with the clear knowledge that most people are
unknowingly installing their app/toolbar. Much worse than spammers.

With your extensive experience with user behavior, it is interesting that you
see this differently.

~~~
chrismorgan
(I shall ignore the toolbar installation matter; that has been discussed at
length in the linked thread and there is little value in continuing that
here.)

> _You should then consider a better host._

Very well then; step one: identify a better host where PortableApps.com can
get over 50TB per month for free. I'm not aware of any other than SourceForge
which would do such a thing and John does not have the money to spend on
commercial rates for such bandwidth. (Incidentally, donations are always
welcome at PortableApps.com, because the rest of the infrastructure does still
cost money, and quite a considerable amount.)

~~~
jeswin
I get that. But somebody must be paying for 50TB, right? It is paid for by
users who inadvertently installed bundled *-ware.

Edit: I am not saying portableapps.com is at fault here for using this free
facility. SourceForge is, for their business model.

~~~
JohnTHaller
No, it is not. It is mostly paid for by ads on the website. There are only a
handful of SourceForge projects trying out this new, 100% optional, offer-
based installer. PortableApps.com is not one of them. Bundling 3rd party
offers is not permitted within PortableApps.com Format apps.

------
tobyjsullivan
The state of affairs really is unfortunate. I think we can all attest to
SourceForge having played a wonderful roll in the open software industry at
one point. But how can anybody, no matter how loyal, support what it has
become?

Define your company values early.

------
jevinskie
This is also a problem with FileZilla. Sourceforge pushing adware? I never
thought I would see the day - totally absurd!

[https://forum.filezilla-
project.org/viewtopic.php?t=30240](https://forum.filezilla-
project.org/viewtopic.php?t=30240)

~~~
copx
Some people here seem to be seriously confused by anti-SF FUD.

These ad-ware loaded installers are _not_ the default. You have to explicitly
opt-in. It provides SF and projects hosted there (a kinda shady) _optional_
way to make money.

The FileZilla installer contains ad-ware because the FileZilla developers
chose to add it. It is their attempt to make money. I use SF too but none of
my projects come with ad-ware installers.

One should point out that bundling ad-ware is a common way developers of free
(as in beer) software make money in the Windows world.. so SF has not cooked
up some nefarious new scheme here.

~~~
shadowmint
There, fixed that typo for you:

    
    
        One should point out that bundling ad-ware is a common 
        way *morally bankrupt money grabbing* developers of 
        free (as in beer) software ...

------
eliteraspberrie
Amazon Route 53 has a feature called _Latency Based Routing_ , which you can
use to distribute traffic to your own mirrors. With AWS, Rackspace and other
similar cheap hosting, I see no reason for a SourceForge.

By the way, SourceForge, Freecode (aka Freshmeat) and Slashdot were all
acquired by Dice.com in September 2012.

~~~
chrismorgan
The GIMP uses an awful lot of bandwidth monthly, well into the terabytes
monthly, I believe. PortableApps.com is another project and one which I know
much more about due to my involvement; it goes through over 50TB per month and
with something like S3 that is already well over $5,000 per month at a
minimum. No reason for SourceForge?

~~~
Eiwatah4
$ 5000 seems way too much.

50 TB of traffic would cost something like $ 200 (if all downloads were from
the US or Europe) to $ 450 (if all of were from South America) according to
this page:
[https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/?navclick=true#pricing](https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/?navclick=true#pricing)

That's still a lot of money, of course.

~~~
josephlord
Can you recheck your maths? It is $0.08/GB (to Internet in the US 10-50TB
volume price) not $0.0008/GB

1000 GB == 1TB

$0.08 * 50 * 1000 = $4,000

Or have I missed something?

~~~
michaelt
According to [1] there were 1,425,722 downloads of gimp-2.8.6-setup.exe from
SourceForge last month.

According to [2] that file is 90.1 megabytes

So that one file used 122.5 TB of bandwidth in that month.

Assume for the purposes of argument this is 100% from the US and follows the
cloudfront pricing outlined at [3], and per-request costs are trivial.

    
    
      (10 terabytes) * (0.120 US$ per gigabyte) 
      + (40 terabytes) * (0.080 US$ per gigabyte) 
      + ((122.5-50) terabytes) * (0.060 US$ per gigabyte) in US$
      = 8960 US$ [4]
    

So, for that single file, about US$ 9000 a month.

It gets more expensive if people download from other countries, and 22% of
downloads were for different files not included in the download count for the
most popular file, which I used above. It would be trivial to top $12,000 a
month in cloudfront fees.

[1] [http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-
win/files/GIMP%20%2B%20...](http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-
win/files/GIMP%20%2B%20GTK%2B%20%28stable%20release%29/GIMP%202.8.6/gimp-2.8.6-setup.exe/stats/timeline?dates=2013-10-01+to+2013-11-09)
[2] [http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-
win/files/GIMP%20%2B%20...](http://sourceforge.net/projects/gimp-
win/files/GIMP%20%2B%20GTK%2B%20%28stable%20release%29/GIMP%202.8.6/) [3]
[https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/#pricing](https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/#pricing)
[4]
[https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=(10+terabytes)+*+(0.120+US...](https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=\(10+terabytes\)+*+\(0.120+US%24+per+gigabyte\)+%2B+\(40+terabytes\)+*+\(0.080+US%24+per+gigabyte\)+%2B+\(\(122.5-50\)+terabytes\)+*+\(0.060+US%24+per+gigabyte\)+in+US%24)

------
hrjet
SF didn't have a good sustenance plan. If they had a way to charge users
directly (instead of bombarding them with ads), they could have continued to
provide good service to open-source projects.

As a user, it is a good idea to research the sustenance plan of a service
before using it.

------
jackhammons
It's a shame that a company which spearheaded free availability to open source
code has sunken to the point of encouraging proprietary installers and adware
laden applications.

------
mschuster91
If GitHub were to clone some of SFnet's features (full-featured web hosting,
forum), I bet my behind on a mass SFnet exodus.

------
chj
Downloading on Sourceforge hasn't been a pleasant experience for a long time,
and we have to live with that because it's free. But now an installer? I have
to say it's crazy.

~~~
chrismorgan
Again—that is _opt-in only_ on the part of project maintainers. It is _not_
mandatory.

------
jzzskijj
Just realized my Windows laptop is still at Gimp 2.6 and while at www.gimp.org
let's take this as an opportunity to update to 2.8 series:

 _Not Found

The requested URL /pub/gimp/v2.8/windows/gimp-2.8.8-setup.exe was not found on
this server._

Bad timing for me apparently.

------
ithinkso
It is unbelievable what SourceForge, once amazing, became of.

~~~
mburns
Is 'unbelievable' even remotely the right word?

------
ash
Bintray is a another service that hosts binaries for open source projects.
Seems nice:

[https://bintray.com/](https://bintray.com/)

------
teekert
But where are the torrents? The ftp-site seems horribly congested.

~~~
mng2
It looks like there are several torrents out there, but an 'official' one
would be nice to have.

------
Nux
All good things come to an end.

