Welcome to the real world of OS development, RssBandit (SF)

Note: this entry has moved.

Good news for RssBandit, which now has a new home.

I have to say this: REAL opensource developers use SourceForge, NOT GotDotNet. The later sucks for many reasons: has almost no reliability (too many failures too often), is incredible slow for code source handling, does not use CVS (the standard for free-robust-reliable-proven-secure-enterprise-ready-etc version control), uses those awful guids all over the place, etc.

SourceForge, on the other hand, gives you all that, plus really cool administrative features, mailing lists, CVS (readonly anonymous, SSH-secured for project developers) and ViewCVS (browser code online, the REAL way, with diff, versions, comments, etc), 100MB (!!!) of space for your project home page (which is not a damn ugly URL, but something like "dotnetopensrc.sourceforge.net", you can even abreviate sourceforge with "sf"), has a secure release system, has 10 (!) permanent powerful mirrors to download files from, is thoroughly proven (read THIS: Hosted Projects: 72,764, Registered Users: 752,583, and I NEVER had even a minor problem with my OS project), and the list goes on and on...

In brief, Dare, welcome to the real world of OS development!


  • I don't know if I'd quote the statistics on the number of projects on SourceForge. Most of those projects are dead.

    And GotDotNet offers direct integration with Visual Studio .NET on the desktop, which SourceForge does not. It still amazes me that as popular as CVS is supposed to be, there is no viable (stable, under development) open source SCC API project. I had to go buy the CVSSCCProxy software from PushOK. Even Subversion has one in progress...

  • I was going to post this the other day when the announcement went out. I thought it was quite curious that a Microsoft employee moved a project that he leads from GDN to SF.

    Says something about GDN, huh?

  • Ok Great! More Power to ya!

    But for .Net message areas GDN is the best I have found and there are lots of folks who can answer questions.

    I for one would like to see a SF type of community that was a tad bit more WIndows friendly....

    Perhaps as Win* based projects keep going there it will become that.

    what do we need there IMHO:

    .aspx web hosting as an option would help.

    some WIndows Boxes with terminal service would be cool....

    thats my $0.02 worth.

  • Considering that the GotDotNet site or the Workspaces are down or broken quite often, we have at least one reason not to use them.

  • To Denny, I think that GDN is a very good community site, but Daniel was speaking about GDN Workspaces, perhaps this project is not yet mature enough...

    I tried SF many years ago, and it also had some youth's problems.

    I like very much the effort put on GDN Workspaces, considering that it can also be used as an alternative to a Microsoft product (VSS).

    We will see!

  • Tim, the news is NOT about a Microsoft employee moving a project that he leads from GDN to SF, it's about a successful opensource project lead by a clever and good developer who faced the limitations of GDN, and moved to a more robust service.

    That's what says something about GDN, not Dare's relationship with MS, IMO.

  • Daniel, I'm not fooling myself or anyone. You quoted a statistic which was misleading and I corrected that. And your response still doesn't address what I said, talking about page views and downloads. I was talking about the "Number of Projects" statistic. Since there are many dead projects, it is misleading. Don't take it personally dude.

    I know that this is Microsoft's first foray into the area, and you don't scale up to meet the demand until there is a demand. Doing otherwise is foolish. If this is an area of interest to Microsoft, it will improve.

    And TortoiseCVS does NOT integrate with Visual Studio. I use TortoiseCVS, and it works well for what it does (integration with Windows Explorer, but that's not unique), but I want integration with Visual Studio. The SCC API is proprietary, you do have to do sign an NDA to get a hold of it. However, I've seen several open source implementations that have abstracted out that part of the API, so it can be done. Just wondering why the one project on SourceForge that addresses this is inactive. Until the integration issue is fixed, using CVS will still be a kludge and SourceGear Vault will gain market share.

  • Hey Darrell, you're right about the project number stats. I got excited ;)

    //you don't scale up to meet the demand until there is a demand. Doing otherwise is foolish.

    If you have a couple projects, with few users, and your system already a fat slow hog which already fails quite often even with so little preassure, I'd say there will NEVER be demand. You have to design your software to scale right from the start. After-thoughts lead to a shapeless mass of patched-hacked-unmaintainable-even-so-non-scalable code.

    And, while we are at the semantic field of what we say, I never said TortoiseCVS itegrates with VS ;)... I said "cool integration of CVS", never said with what, hehe.... You're right, it integrates with windows explorer and works like a charm.

    About the SCC API being propietary and requiring an NDA, how can you expect much enthusiasm from opensource fans? They certainly hate both concepts! I think any decent developer can live with CVS in its current incarnation. But you're right about SourceGear Vault.

    I do believe, however, that SF+CVS is a bit daunting at first. More windows-friendly and better UI would be great additions to it. But that's not the really important thing of such a service, is it? You need it to actually WORK!!, not have fancy icons and fail when you or your users need it.

  • SF? GDN? it's all the same as it can be made accessible to all those interested developers..

    As long as he doesn't start shipping massive number of CDs like AOL, it's OK.. :-)

  • Well, it's not the same if the site is failing too often... that's not what I call "accessible".

    Add to that the fact that you need a Passport account to download code and/or source, and it's really a joke to call such a thing "accessible".

    BTW, I got the last SF update: 7 million page views a day.

  • Wait a minute, all I remember is that he moved the project because GDN requires you to have a .Net passport in order to download files. Did he mention anything other than that as a cause for the move?

  • Em... I'm afraid you're right. However, the other reasons exposed here still apply. I can't believe he moved just for that reason. But that's my personal opinion.

  • I just noticed the CVS-SCC project released some new files too (from Dare). We're checking it out now, hoping for good stuff!

Comments have been disabled for this content.