Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Advertising Open Source Software SourceForge The Gimp

SourceForge Appeals To Readers For Help Nixing Bad Ad Actors 198

Posted by timothy
from the please-don't-punch-the-monkey dept.
Last week, we mentioned that the GIMP project had elected to leave SourceForge as its host, citing SourceForge's advertising policies. SourceForge (which shares a parent company with Slashdot) has released a statement about those policies, addressing in particular both ads that are confusing in themselves and their revenue-sharing system called DevShare, based on the provision of third-party software along with users' downloads. Among other things, the SF team is appealing to users to help them find and block misleading ads, and has this to say about the additional downloads: "The DevShare program has been designed to be fully transparent. The installation flow has no deceptive steps, all offers are fully disclosed, and the clear option to completely decline the offer is always available. All uninstallation procedures are exhaustively documented, and all third party offers go through a comprehensive compliance process to make sure they are virus and malware free."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SourceForge Appeals To Readers For Help Nixing Bad Ad Actors

Comments Filter:
  • Missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)

    by finkployd (12902) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @04:47PM (#45425988) Homepage

    I don't want useless add on application/browser extension/etc being installed when I chose to download something. No matter how much vetting and transparency, this is simply wrong.

    • by twocows (1216842) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @04:57PM (#45426110)
      This, and I believe this was a big part of why GIMP left. Just because other download sites are doing it doesn't mean it's tolerable. Sourceforge is pretty much completely unusuable without ABP at this point (which, when enabled, makes SF completely bearable; forcing users to use ad blocking software means your advertising model isn't working).
      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:23PM (#45426412)

        Nothing personal but it seems kind of ironic coming from someone named twocows....

      • by i kan reed (749298) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:33PM (#45426542) Homepage Journal

        And there's the fact that the dumb things Sourceforge was doing was harming Gimp's reputation as a legitimate piece of professional software. That's a reputation they've been working hard to develop for years(name complaints aside).

        • by TapeCutter (624760) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @07:05PM (#45427598) Journal
          Exactly, it's so simple even a SF marketer could understand it, users with half a brain do not want crapware and do not trust it no matter how many times you scan it. Sure, plaster as many ads as you like on the project page, you can even make them blink if you must, but leave the fucking installer alone, it is not YOUR software.

          SF are also shooting themselves in the foot for a few extra pennies. The hated (and I mean HATED by everybody) crapware is getting a free ride on Gimp's reputation and damaging both SF and Gimp's reputation in the process. That may be legal but it ain't right,
      • by amicusNYCL (1538833) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:38PM (#45426592)

        I don't even think their statement is very honest. We have this line:

        The installation flow has no deceptive steps

        So, when I go to a project's download page, and I see a bunch of ads with giant green "DOWNLOAD NOW" buttons, that isn't supposed to be deceptive? Then there's this:

        the clear option to completely decline the offer is always available

        The "clear option" is a greyed-out "Decline" button on the bottom left of the installer. The green Accept button is on the bottom right of the installer, which is the place that people have been trained to click to go to the next step. While it's true that the decline button is always visible, making it appear greyed-out and away from the Accept button is not exactly clear (and possibly deceptive). Moreover, instead of "Decline" and "Accept", how about "Only Install Filezilla" or "Install Offer And Filezilla". THAT would be clear and non-deceptive.

        Here's a hint for SF: if you want to identify bad actors, one indication is that they are an advertiser. The advertiser's goal is to steal attention and make people click on something, even (especially?) if it wasn't what they intended to click on. Advertisers ruin everything about the internet, they're the reason why we needed popup blocking in the first place. Whenever a new technology comes along, advertisers are there to shit all over it. Excuse me, "monetize" it. If you're putting ads on your site, and you have no control over the content of those ads (i.e. fed from a third-party network), then those ads are going to be annoying and deceptive. I fully expect to go to SF one day and see some ad screaming about how "one weird tip" can allow me to download Filezilla.

        • by yuhong (1378501) <<moc.liamtoh> <ta> <683_oabgnohuy>> on Thursday November 14, 2013 @06:55PM (#45427494) Homepage

          Well the deceptive part IMO is the "bait and switch" part where they showed one filename but in reality download a different file.

        • by schnell (163007) <meNO@SPAMschnell.net> on Thursday November 14, 2013 @11:46PM (#45429585) Homepage

          Advertisers ruin everything about the internet

          They are also the reason most websites on the Internet are free. They are the reason Gmail is free, maps, and, hell, even Android are free. Everything on the Internet that isn't a charity needs to get paid for, and if you aren't buying something then an advertiser is paying in order to get to you.

          It sucks that some ads are annoying and intrusive. Those should be avoided at all costs along with the sites that allow them. But advertisers don't ruin everything about the Internet ... they actually are responsible for 95% of the Internet being free of charge.

        • by spmkk (528421) on Friday November 15, 2013 @12:35AM (#45429881)

          Here's a hint for SF: if you want to identify bad actors, one indication is that they are an advertiser...Whenever a new technology comes along, advertisers are there to shit all over it. Excuse me, "monetize" it.

          The problem here is you (well, us) as consumers. We not only want FOSS, we want delivery to be free, too -- without regard for the fact that the infrastructure to facilitate that delivery actually takes tangible resources (i.e. money, not just developer time) to operate.

          So, in effect, we the consumer base are CHOOSING this advertising model. If you were willing to pay $0.25 to Sourceforge every time you downloaded a program or code tree from them, you could make a reasonable demand for SF to do away with the stupid ad shenanigans. But you're not. Even if you personally are, the user base as a whole has gotten accustomed to delivery being "free" and now demands it. And since it's not actually free, sites like SF have to find a way to stay solvent.

          The "bad actors" here are consumers of free stuff who get their panties in a bunch whenever the silver platter that their free stuff is served on is even the slightest bit tarnished.

        • by mindwhip (894744)

          The "clear option" is a greyed-out "Decline" button on the bottom left of the installer.

          More or less the same reasons I stopped recommending Avast to friends who often ended up malware infected due to pre-installed Mcaffee not doing anything useful... Constant popups prompting to download a version 'upgrade' with the version that costs more button in bright yellow and the free or currently paid for version on a practically invisible 'greyed out' button. Even when I knew they were doing this I found it difficult to avoid ending up on a shop page...

          Imagine if every time you got in your car and

      • Re:Missing the point (Score:4, Interesting)

        by PopeRatzo (965947) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:56PM (#45426804) Homepage Journal

        I would hope that at the very least, Sourceforge would make these add-on sales pitches to be turned off by default and make them opt-in instead of opt-out.

        I've had to sit my wife and daughter down and explain to them how when they update Java or Adobe anything they have to be sure to turn off all the BS programs that those installers will try to slip by them, because of their horrible opt-out malware installers.

        • by dalias (1978986)
          Wouldn't it be better to just uninstall Java and Adobe-anything? Chrome can read PDFs and play Flash purely with the components packaged with it; there's no need to install third-party add-ons. And Java is pretty much 100% useless except in corporate intranets with Java-based in-house software.
        • by J'raxis (248192)

          But who the hell would opt in to being assaulted by this kind of shit? The only way these kinds of ads even remotely work is to force them on consumers.

    • by Desler (1608317) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:01PM (#45426158)

      Timmeh is paid to miss the point. Did anyone really expect Dice.com emoyees to speak against this adware?

      • The weirdest thing about the lack of honesty here is that everyone reads slashdot for the comments. Did they think the facade of caring would last past the last word of the summary?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Desler (1608317)

          The last sentence is also extraordinarily patronizing and seems to think we're dumb enough to fall for it. "It's okay that we installed this crapware that you didn't want because we document how to uninstall it!" I would like to think Timmeh doesn't actually believe such crap. It's one thing to parrot the company line it's another to actually believe it when it's so obviously absurd.

      • by mwvdlee (775178) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:42PM (#45426640) Homepage

        Atleast they were honest enough to add "which shares a parent company with Slashdot".
        This loosely translates to "everything here is lies, and you have been warned".

      • by icebike (68054)

        Mod Parent UP.

        Most people probably don't realize SF is owned by the owner of Slashdot.
        SF is probably a good indication of what will befall Slashdot.

      • Timmeh is paid to miss the point. Did anyone really expect Dice.com employees to speak against this adware?

        "Miss the point" is a good way to put it. The point is not (entirely, anyway) that the "sideloads" are deceptive. The point is that people don't want to have to screw with it, deceptive or not.

        Speaking of missing the point: Slashdot's new policy of having to wait 5 minutes between posts is causing me to hit the "post" button many times more than I used to. Arguably, that represents more network and server traffic, not less.

    • by TWiTfan (2887093) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:07PM (#45426230)

      I couldn't believe it when I installed some software from Sourceforge a while back and ended up with a malware toolbar in my browser (that was a huge PITA to remove, no less). At first I thought it was a mistake, that I *must* have gotten it from somewhere else. Then when I heard similar stories from others and realized it was intentional, just a cheap money grab--I knew the Sourceforge I once knew and trusted could never be trusted by me (or supported) ever again. Sad day.

      • Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)

        by cffrost (885375) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:35PM (#45426558) Homepage

        I couldn't believe it when I installed some software from Sourceforge a while back and ended up with a malware toolbar in my browser (that was a huge PITA to remove, no less). At first I thought it was a mistake, that I *must* have gotten it from somewhere else. Then when I heard similar stories from others and realized it was intentional, just a cheap money grab--I knew the Sourceforge I once knew and trusted could never be trusted by me (or supported) ever again. Sad day.

        Was there a check-box to opt-out of the malware installation, or was the malware installed silently? I've installed several programs from SF recently, and I read all of the dialogs, but I haven't seen any opt-outs or malware.

        • by mwvdlee (775178)

          It's probably the big green download buttons that appear on every download page.
          I never got quite as far as installing toolbars, but only because the downloaded executable name didn't look like the one I was expecting (and, 10 seconds later, the real download started).

          • by cffrost (885375)

            It's probably the big green download buttons that appear on every download page.
            I never got quite as far as installing toolbars, but only because the downloaded executable name didn't look like the one I was expecting (and, 10 seconds later, the real download started).

            I'd guess I use the big green button about 67-75% of the time, and never got a download I didn't want. I suppose ABP, NoScript, RequestPolicy, Ghostery, PeerBlock, HOSTS, or referer/user-agent spoofing might have something to do with it.

            The user above who said that Adblock is security software is right — I consider the countermeasures I listed above to be so as well.

          • by mpicker0 (411333)
            I've never understood the whole "Your download will start in n seconds" countdown, followed by an automatic download (hopefully). Is there a reason they do that instead of simply giving you a link to the file? To be fair, this behavior isn't recent; it's done that for years.
      • Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Informative)

        by mysidia (191772) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @09:32PM (#45428889)

        I couldn't believe it when I installed some software from Sourceforge a while back and ended up with a malware toolbar in my browser

        According to This [sourceforge.net]; it is never done without the developer opting in.

        In July 2013, we launched a pilot version of an opt-in revenue-sharing program called DevShare. DevShare is a partnership program offered to SourceForge developers to turn downloads into a source of revenue for them, by bundling their applications with third parties’ offers.

        ...

        This is a 100% opt-in program for the developer, and we want to reassure you that we will NEVER bundle offers with any project without the developers consent. The DevShare program has been designed to be fully transparent.

    • Exactly. Its scummy, gives a bad taste to sourceforge. It will only drive people to github.

    • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:23PM (#45426410)

      What's really funny is how they completely failed to understand who their customers were. It'd be like Whole Foods spritzing free Pesticides on your produce as you checked out.

      • by rudy_wayne (414635) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:31PM (#45426506)

        What's really funny is how they completely failed to understand who their customers were. >

        No, they know exactly who their customers are. their customers are the people who pay them to display ads and inject extra crap into downloads. That's where SourceForge's revenue comes from. Not from you.

        • by gbjbaanb (229885)

          their customers are the people who used to pay them to display ads before everyone left for the competitor sites that didn't spew disingenuous ad buttons over every download.

          TFTFY.

        • by tqk (413719)

          What's really funny is how they completely failed to understand who their customers were.

          No, they know exactly who their customers are. their customers are the people who pay them to display ads and inject extra crap into downloads. That's where SourceForge's revenue comes from. Not from you.

          If you get it for free, you're not the customer. You're the product. True from Facebook through to The Salvation Army.

          • Re:Missing the point (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Charliemopps (1157495) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @07:02PM (#45427574)

            I'm tired of this ridiculous argument. It sounds stupid when you say it but you think you're technically correct. Well you're not. They actually have 2 sets of customers. They get something non-monetary from one set, which they trade to the other set for cash. If they lose either customer they are going out of business.

            • by Luckyo (1726890)

              Customer is the entity that drives your business by paying for services you provide. Product is the service you provide.

              Views by the people who download are the service that is being provided to advertisers who pay. That is the business model. No amount of spindoctoring will change that.

            • by khakipuce (625944) on Friday November 15, 2013 @09:24AM (#45431937) Homepage Journal

              It's more like ranching or fishing. The cattle and fish are not customers, they are your feedstock or raw materials. Treat them badly, over-fish, poison them and you have no feedstock and hence no revenue. Google gets this fairly well, they actively farm their users giving them plenty to feed on, and doing their best not to pollute the food supply (i.e. search results in google's case) they also add in cool stuff, new toys, etc. and hence Google's customers are happy fat cows who keep coming back for more - I know, I am one!

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Agreed, that's one reason people ditch Windows. Windows users are use to that sort of bullshit, open source folks won't stand for it.

      SourceForge, this shit needs to stop. Advertising is fine, but damn it, leave the trickery to the corporate... oh, oh... Dice owns SourceForge now, doesn't it?

      SourceForge is SO screwed...

    • by Greyfox (87712)
      I nixed the bad actors by putting all my projects on github.
  • by hawguy (1600213) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @04:53PM (#45426038)

    If you don't want complaints then make the DevShare program opt-in instead of opt-out.

    You may argue that few people would choose to opt-in, but that's the point, isn't it?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      From the article:

      Currently in the Pilot phase, we only have 3 projects participating in the DevShare program all of which explicitly opted-in. This represents 3 out of 300,000+ projects in our entire catalog. This is a 100% opt-in program for the developer, and we want to reassure you that we will NEVER bundle offers with any project without the developers consent

      Sounds pretty opt-in to me.

    • Although still iffy, DevShare is entirely op-tin (FTA): "Currently in the Pilot phase, we only have 3 projects participating in the DevShare program all of which explicitly opted-in. This represents 3 out of 300,000+ projects in our entire catalog. This is a 100% opt-in program for the developer, and we want to reassure you that we will NEVER bundle offers with any project without the developers consent."

      Of course, with all the ill-will caused by the mere existence of the program...

      • by mwvdlee (775178)

        Of course, with all the ill-will caused by the mere existence of the program...

        Does the DevShare program warn about it's inclusion in software before the user requests a download?
        Otherwise it's just a case of users being uncertain whether any particular download can be trusted or not.

      • by Luckyo (1726890) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @09:09PM (#45428739)

        Opt in for DEVELOPER. People who download get boned and don't get asked if they want a condom or not.

    • If you don't want complaints then make the DevShare program opt-in instead of opt-out.

      You may argue that few people would choose to opt-in, but that's the point, isn't it?

      The DevShare program is opt in by projects; meaning that if they want to participate, they indicate as such when we inquire if this is something in which they may be interested to help fund their development. For users, it's the same. Clicking the decline button through the offers will download the software they were seeking. - Daniel Hinojosa, SourceForge Community Manager

  • how about... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, 2013 @04:54PM (#45426062)

    just not doing the installation share thing AT ALL. I don't care how well it gets documented, it's a tactic that is built to take advantage of the large group of people that will do nothing but hit "next" 7 or 8 times and not look at anything.

    • Re:how about... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by icebike (68054) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:41PM (#45426618)

      Exactly.

      I just checked yesterday, and the thing is still loaded with malware Download buttons.
      This morning, it looks slightly different, but on four different projects the biggest button
      on the page was MALWARE download button. (Adblock switched off).

      Why can't they just put them all in a separate box labeled MALWARE - DON'T CLICK!.
      Or header the column they are in with a ADVERTISEMENT - Not the software you were looking for" banner.

      SourceForge has definitely suffered since being picked up by Dice Holdings, and it is probably
      an indication of what will happen to Slashdot over time.

  • by OzPeter (195038) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @04:57PM (#45426092)

    All they are doing now is stepping up their tap dancing in the hopes that people will fail to see the obvious about their bundled downloads.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @04:57PM (#45426098) Journal
    With rare, mutually beneficial, exceptions, it seems to generally be the case that if I can get paid for putting an 'offer' in front of a user, no matter how transparent and not-spyware and whatnot, that's a good sign that the value to the user is negative.

    Gosh, yes, I'd love to receive offers from your carefully selected content partners!

    Obviously, a continuum exists, from pure drive-by malware to the-box-isn't-even-checked-by-default opt-in stuff; with various levels of 'all the boxes start checked; but you can uncheck them if you can find them' and 'sure, just go down the stairs, take a left at the sign that says "beware of the leopard", pick the lock on the third door on your right, and choose the 'advanced install' package from the bottom drawer of the filing cabinet'; but just because sleaze occupies a continuum doesn't mean you want to get any on you...
    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      Even if unchecked by default, it's easy to encourage mistakes...

      [ ] Install for all users
      [ ] Install shell extensions
      [ ] Include common file format plug-ins
      [ ] Include third party informational tools
      [ ] Enable automatic updates
      [ ] Disable anonymous usage statistics

  • dont mind ads and most people that use Sf are smart enough to see around them.

    But SF had a reputation for be clean installs that could be trusted. That is no longer the case.
    SF you blew your done and gone.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    SVN is lame; Gimp is where it's at, baby.

    Github is 6th Street. Sourceforge is the old Main Street, with mostly boarded-up buildings.

  • by Chirs (87576) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:00PM (#45426146)

    When I want to download software, I want that software, not other piece of software that's going to install itself in my browsers and mine my information.

    As others have said, make it purely opt-in and I can live with it. The opt-out stuff just pisses me off because it is so transparently trying to profit off people that aren't paying attention.

    • by SrLnclt (870345)

      When I want to download software, I want that software, not other piece of software that's going to install itself in my browsers and mine my information.

      I know computer savvy users who have refused to give Chrome a try precisely because it has been bundled with so many other things over the years.

      If your software is bundled with something I am installing, I assume your software is junk unless I already know otherwise. Even if your software is decent (e.g. Chrome), I can decide independently for myself when or if I want to install it.

  • by Animats (122034) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:01PM (#45426156) Homepage

    SourceForge has shown it can't be trusted. The only way they could regain trust at this point is by legally committing themselves to never bundling anything with an installer, and using an open source installer. Instead, their terms [slashdotmedia.com] still read "We reserve the right at our sole discretion and at any time to ... change the terms and conditions of this Agreement."

    Sorry, SourceForge. You got caught. Promising you won't do it again isn't good enough. That's just PR spin.

    • by Chemisor (97276) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:28PM (#45426462)

      In the wake of the scandal I have just finished moving all my projects to GitHub, and man, it's been worth it. I mean, have you noticed how incredibly slow SourceForge is lately? I've been using it for over ten years now, and it's been getting slower and slower. I got used to it, but now on GitHub I'm constantly amazed that I don't have to wait a few minutes for the project page to load. Or the fact that I don't even have to go there any more because I can make releases by creating a tag and project web page is just another git branch. How do you update a SourceForge web page again? I'll have to look it up, 'cause I don't remember at all. I only remember that ssh, scp, and lots of manual copying was involved. SourceForge's release system is a pain, and really, the only feature SourceForge has that GitHub does not is access statistics, but this feature hasn't worked properly ever since the big UI overhaul a few years back. Frankly, I don't see any reason to ever go back to SourceForge.

    • by X0563511 (793323)

      Why the hell does SF even need an installer?

      Don't. Just don't. Serve the files people upload into their projects, and hands-fucking-off.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:02PM (#45426182)

    ... and I left them too, almost a decade ago. it cost me downloads, but saved my customers from their intrusive bundled downloads.

  • by Alphanos (596595) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:07PM (#45426228)

    The bottom line is that GIMP didn't want to be associated with tricking its users into installing borderline malware. If a program's installer is filled with traps that you have to carefully watch for to avoid - that sets off huge blaring alarms in the heads of most experienced users.

    This is especially a problem for the open-source community, which still struggles to get a fair comparison with commercial software in the corporate IT world. If even major software gets saddled with nonsense like SourceForge is trying to pull, it could set back progress by years.

    SourceForge had better smarten up before it becomes a ghost town. GIMP is certainly not going to be the last high-profile departure if things don't change.

    While we're at it, the summary of this story was blatantly whitewashed. Mentioning the parent company link should be a bare minimum, not an excuse to abandon all pretense of impartiality.

    • by Obfuscant (592200)

      If a program's installer is filled with traps that you have to carefully watch for to avoid - that sets off huge blaring alarms in the heads of most experienced users.

      This is why I will never willingly install Chrome. Just once too often I found it was going to be installed by default with a java update. McAfee AV now seems to be the beneficiary of such stealth installation.

      And worse are the ones where it isn't just stealth by having small text somewhere during the download, it's complete secrecy. I needed an AC3 codec for my PVR device and found myself the proud owner of a new web search provider that would reset itself to be my search provider every time I unset it.

    • I actually read the article (I know, you can't do that on Slashdot). It says DevShare is opt-in for developers, not opt-out, and that's what inserts the additional stuff in the executables. So were the GIMP folks just confused? It sounds like GIMP left over something that was in their control in the first place. (No, I don't work for any of these folks.)
      • They also noted on their front page http://www.gimp.org/ [gimp.org]

        In the past few months, we have received some complaints about the site where the GIMP installers for the Microsoft Windows platforms are hosted.

        SourceForge, once a useful and trustworthy place to develop and host FLOSS applications, has faced a problem with the ads they allow on their sites - the green "Download here" buttons that appear on many, many adds leading to all kinds of unwanted utilities have been spotted there as well.

        I've seen those ads on the sf pages as well and am not fond of them but sf doesn't offer a premium developer account that provides ad free project and download pages.

  • by symbolset (646467) * on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:14PM (#45426304) Homepage Journal
    I hope they don't mess up /. too.
    • by i kan reed (749298) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:28PM (#45426466) Homepage Journal

      Have you been to beta.slashdot.org [slashdot.org]? It's only a matter of time until they deploy it and I'm gone.

      • I just glanced at beta.slashdot.org [slashdot.org] (the actual one, your link is incorrect, its just a link back to this story).. and .. I don't see the problem? Looks pretty good to me.

      • by mwvdlee (775178)

        To be fair, http://beta.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] looks a lot less crap than it did when they first announced it.
        It's still form over function though, so still crap.

        They just need to make a more sane font and color choices and it might just work.
        I know hairlines and white are "hip" these days, but they also make things indistinguishable.
        There nothing wrong with conventional design; there's a good reason it became convention.

        • by cas2000 (148703)

          too bad the site doesn't work properly - for example, click on an article, you'll get the article page and a dozen or so comments plus a "load more comments" button. clicking that button returns you to the index page.

          the current slashdot site works just fine with noscript. beta.slashdot does not. fuck that shit, slashdot's stories and comments just aren't worth the risk of letting them and their corportate parents and their advertisers and whoever else run arbitrary code on my computer.

          if slashdot become

      • by symbolset (646467) *

        I actually don't mind that one. The modern look is fresh and it remembers most of my preferences. The "read more comments" button doesn't work on my browser though, and the right side boxes for notifications is not there. Of the left column all I use is the "submissions" link, which could be moved over to the right side, maybe in a pulldown. It seems incomplete. I'm sure they'll keep classic slashdot [slashdot.org] maintained for us geezers if they go that way. It has been in beta unchanged since the turnover though

      • by wjcofkc (964165)
        I just took a second look at beta.slashdot.org right now and it's come a long way since they first published that ugly link in the story they ran about it. You should take another look.
  • by Desler (1608317) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:16PM (#45426328)

    All uninstallation procedures are exhaustively documented, and all third party offers go through a comprehensive compliance process to make sure they are virus and malware free.

    Except that you and the Sourceforge people know damn well that next to no one actually wants that crapware. 99% of cases it will be installef by someone merely clicking through not expecting crapware in the installer.

    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      All uninstallation procedures are exhaustively documented

      Also, it would be nice if those uninstallation procedures could be found by googling for it and if they didn't involve installing yet another untrusted application.

      • I hadn't used SF in a while but I was expecting the same straight forward, no BS install I've always had. I didn't navigate the fine print and whamo! "Conduit" is installed. OK, uninstall Conduit. Not so much. It inserted itself all over the place. I had to resort to regedit and directory deletion to (mostly) wipe it out. I still have someplace that's causing a "cannot find .dll" pop-up to show. SF you are now flagged as "BAD-BAD-BAD" in my list.
  • They are putting these ads on their site and they are getting the revenue from the ads and they want me to to tell them which ads are appropriate and which are not. For free! Screw you, I already have a paying job, I don't need to do your job for you as well.
  • Won't go there any longer. Devs better start leaving in droves and hosting their own stuff.

  • This is near the top of a(quickly growing) list of reasons I no longer tolerate, and now simply hate, Oracle. Gee SourceForge, want to be bucketed with Oracle? Yeah... kind of thought not.

    As far as I'm concerned third-party inclusion-ware might as well be called parasite-ware, and is a form of Malware that's just easier to remove. It's the same level as crapware that comes pre-installed on a laptop.

    Stop providing services that I don't need.
    Stop giving me software I don't want.
    Stop getting in my way.

    If I ne

  • Don't be evil (Score:4, Insightful)

    by onyxruby (118189) <onyxruby AT comcast DOT net> on Thursday November 14, 2013 @05:51PM (#45426736)

    Don't bundle /anything/ other than what the user wanted with the download. Don't bundle toolbars, helper programs, utilities, assistants, or anything else you choose to call your advertising product.

    Trust that is lost can't ever really be regained, especially on the Internet. The quick dollars gained came at the expense of the dollars in the long run. You need to start with an apology that acknowledges what was wrong along with a promise in plain English never to do it again.

    Now, I didn't say anything about not running advertising on the pages. Advertising is what makes sites run, and anyone with any length of time in the industry understands their importance. Google style ads that aren't disruptive are generally respected and static graphical ads from companies like Microsoft and IBM must work as they have advertised here for years. The problem is if things get pushed too far and the content can't be read without irritation.

    If the website isn't functional (loads within 1 second without distractions or intermission ads) than you site has gone over too far and the next visit and every visit thereafter will be filtered. We also understand how these things work on the back-end, know how to implement ABP, No Script, Ghostery and other things with advertising gets overbearing.

    At this point it is up to the WebMasters to show that they understand "don't be evil". You can't do it with fine print though, for this audience, reads the fine print.

  • by FSWKU (551325) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @06:17PM (#45427056)

    All uninstallation procedures are exhaustively documented, and all third party offers go through a comprehensive compliance process to make sure they are virus and malware free.

    You clowns at SourceForge/Dice are missing the point. Users DON'T WANT this garbage on their system. You are deliberately trying to get them to install it, even if it's by mistake.

    And what about all the institutions providing you with mirroring? Are they getting a cut of this revenue now? If they're not, then you are DELIBERATELY attempting to profit from their charity and generosity. Personally, I hope every single mirror deletes any SourceForge related material from their servers and tells you to go die in a fire. You are attempting to profit from the work and resources of others who believed they were contributing to the free software community. For that, you are to be shamed, shunned, and written off as yet another group of clueless MBA's out to monitize the entire fucking world at the expense of others. Go fuck yourselves and look for a real job where you have to WORK instead of ruining other people's reputations by bundling useless shit with their software.

  • I mean, I don't really understand why SourceForge is behind this, but hey, I definitely support the effort:

    Pauly Shore
    Keanu Reeves
    Sarah Jessica Parker
    Stallone and Schwarzeneggar, of course, but they're almost too old to be worth the effort. Same for Madonna....

    Aside from that off-the-cuff list, there's a host of really bad female and male actors that are hot, so I'd say give them a pass.

  • by tunapez (1161697) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @06:32PM (#45427210)

    I haven't posted much since the takeover but I wanted to log in one last time to say:
     
    1) Thanks for ruining SF, that was remarkably fast.
     
    and

    2) FUCK OFF!
     
    All /. feeds will be deleted now, no more clicks to read comments for you parasites.

  • are the slopbucket add-ons. I download Audacity and GIMP, and I can't find a way to get rid of sneakware throwing "congratulations! take my survey" when I open another tab, or "you need to upgrade Chrome now," both of which are adware that should NOT be served in the first place. two thumbs down.

  • Too late, Adforge (Score:4, Informative)

    by fluor2 (242824) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @06:50PM (#45427430)

    You ate too much of your own cake.
    The migration to other services has begun.
    You might never recover from this.
    May it be a lesson for all other "free" services trying to make hasty profit.

    • by couchslug (175151)

      "You might never recover from this."

      They should never recover and deserve "excommunication" as punishment.

      It's easy to steer people away from SF....

  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ledow (319597) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @06:50PM (#45427432) Homepage

    "Find and block misleading ads"

    Why is this our job?

    Why do you not know what's being advertised on your own website?

    Why do you run a business based on something you can't control?

    Why don't YOU go through your ads and start removing the misleading crap?

  • William Shatner has to make a living some how.
  • A key point made by the GIMP project was:

    [they] strongly encourage the top projects to use a new (closed source only) installer

    SourceForge not only seems to have missed this key point but has completely reversed it's previous position on Open Source being a key component to transparency. Instead, SourceForge claims:

    The DevShare program has been designed to be fully transparent. The installation flow has no deceptive steps...

    Who says it has no deceptive steps? How do I audit the source code to the installation flow?

    For anyone that reads the SourceForge blog [sourceforge.net], this seems to be a very jarring change in prospective on the part of SourceForge. Several previous SourceForge blog posts bring up trans

  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @07:43PM (#45427997)
    Are they even seriously asking right now? All of them. 100% of them. Fucking pick one at random. They ALL have undesireable, misleading, coinstalled crapware. None of them don't have it. How else can I phrase it so these dishonest scam artists?
  • Is it time for us to point Sourceforge to a non-address in our hosts files, and let Sourceforge know we have done same?

    • No, you blackhole it in your internal DNS server. This way you don't have to keep a ton of devices synced up, and a visiting family member can't get around it and spread compu-chlamydia through your network.

  • I think I'm careful enough to avoid including the malware during an installation. But the install program doesn't work at all from behind my employer's corporate firewall. It looks like it tries to connect to a server at a TCP port number not normally associated with HTTP.
  • For the record, I haven't used sourceforge for a long time. On the other hand... Last few weeks I had several autoplaying video adds on /. front page. I often leave slashdot open when I do something else. For a few days straight I went gaming with a couple of friends using skype. In the middle of the game a frigging add starts playing... yeah. ,,,on /. main page... I do understand having adds on main page... BUT GODDAMN AUTOPLAYING VIDEO ADDS ON /. FRONT PAGE THAT REFRESH WITHOUT ASKING: Contemplating
  • by mysidia (191772) on Thursday November 14, 2013 @09:22PM (#45428825)

    Per the Sourceforge blog article [sourceforge.net]:

    Last but not least, we will only include projects that have opted into our program. Our compliance processes are very strict and, as such, our beta program is going to be invitation-only during this first phase. If you would like to participate in this revenue-sharing program, just drop us an email, we’ll be back to you as soon as possible.

  • If it's so fucking wonderful it doesn't need bundling.

    Dicetastic...

  • ...in protest of this behavior. I don't think any active OSS project should stay there if they think this is ethical behavior.

Chemist who falls in acid is absorbed in work.

Working...