Hacker News Reader

Comment by jimrandomh | Hacker News Reader

It's actually worse than that. As an open-source developer deciding where to host a project, I not only need to trust the host, I also need to expect users to also trust the host. If I expect 10% of potential users to bounce when they see that it's hosted on Sourceforge, well, hosting is enough of a commodity that I have no reason to give up on that 10%.

View on HN

In addition to the malware issues, when I land on a SourceForge project that pretty much tells me "this project is dead or on life support" nine times out of ten.

This is true for me as well. SourceForge stopped being the host for anything I cared about years ago. If I land on SourceForge today because they host project X that might solve my problem, I generally start looking for project Y somewhere else.

That doesn't really make any sense today though.

Sure it does. If hosting on SourceForge is predictive of abandoned software, avoiding SourceForge is a useful heuristic.

I get that this is probably not a story you want to hear about your product but it’s true.

No malware issues since 2016 https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/06/under...

I was referring to the ongoing perception of malware issues even after the fact, but you're absolutely right. Guess I should have been clearer but it's too late to edit now.

As for the perception, I think it's going to be like those Red Cross donuts and it'll be very hard to live down.

I think you've unpacked why SF is - sadly - not quite dead, but not quite as alive as it used to be.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com