Slashdot Mirror
Finding Freeware Listing Sites?
A not-so Anonymous Coward asks: "CNET's download.com has become a 'pay to list' service, so it doesn't make sense to list freeware there, anymore. What are the best alternatives? Also, you cannot post linux software there anymore for any price: 'Note: We are no longer accepting any new submissions for Linux, and we will be discontinuing all coverage of Linux on our download sites shortly.' What is the hard working but generous coder supposed to do?"
What is the hard working but generous coder supposed to do?
Start writing Windows shareware obviously.
What trialware or shareware programs were good enough that you "registered" or paid for them ?
Were you coerced into it by nag screens and lack of functionality, or was it primarily good will and the desire to do the right thing ?
yesterday that I have entirely stopped going to download.com for anything. I used to hit that site several times a day. Now I either search for what I am looking for (either app name or what I want it to do) on google or check versiontracker/sourceforge/apple. But I definately use google to find free apps more than anything else.
"Windows Me offers tremendous reliability and stability improvements..." -- Paul Thurott
A few that some newbies may not have thought about:
FreshMeat, which will do a lot for your Linux software needs.
SourceForge for GPL software hosting (CVS and bug tracking, even)
For a more general software needs, VersionTracker, which started with Mac software, now lists Mac, OS X, Windows, and Palm software. For anything other than Macintosh listings, though, it tends to be somewhat limited.
Tocows also lists a lot of software. I have not looked through their Linux listings, but the Mac listings are pretty decent.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
Discontinuing all Linux support? Did I miss something or did sombody BUY Cnet this week?
Oh, I see the problem now. Take a look at this snippet from the new upload.com web page:
Welcome to the new Upload.com! Submitting your software product through Upload.com gets you listed in CNET Networks' download library, which delivers 2.5 million downloads per day. The basic processing fee is $79 to list your product in Download.com, ZDNet Downloads, and MSN Downloads.
Does anyone know who owns Cnet?
(Yeah, probably a troll, but not really. I'm genuine about the "who owns them" question because it just seems like an odd choice to make, you know, like Netscape announcing they're laying off 50 Netscape developers a couple of weeks after signing the MS agreement that gives them IE for seven years. It's just odd, you know?)
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
apt-cache search foo :)
There is Versiontracker, which is very popular in the Macintosh community.
I'm not sure if it's free to list there, but with the amount of low-quality software on there I can image it is.
Oh, and there's Freshmeat too.
So while you may use their cvs for a GPL project, va linux can make a proprietary fork of it at anytime, or sell the rights to use the code to a commercial company.
That's the reason that mysql uses p4 for versioning, and only uses sf.net for binary downloads.
Savannah.gnu.org is a GPL fork of sourceforge used primarily for GNU projects, but will host any GPL project. BSD/other licenses don't care about proprietary forks, so sf.net is still useable for cvs.
Mods - before you kneejerk me down to -1, I suggest you do give the sf.net TOS a very thorough reading.
Tinyapps has some nice gems for Win32. The collection is not very big though.
Tucows charges for reviews, but they don't charge for listings (although a donation makes a listing appear faster.)
What is the hard working but generous coder supposed to do?
Apparently, sell your software.
*rimshot*
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson
I've been using Nonags.com for years.
www.nonags.com identifies "free" (as in beer) software that has "no nags" (no nag screens or crippled features). they have a good selection of open source software as well as "freely-distributable" (binary only) software.
I think the linux community desperately needs a software listing site that focuses on listing quality desktop applications. I am new to linux-on-the-desktop, and the most frustrating thing for me so far is finding quality desktop applications. I want to burn a CD -- how do I know what application to use? What are the top 5 best applications out there? Freshmeat's laundry list approach is useless unless you like wading through hundreds of half finished and abandoned projects.
Does anything like this exist?
Of course, once you know what you want, it is usually just an apt-get away.
S-A-VE has a list of software archives. It's in German, but also has a section of internation sites. Anyway, here is the Google translation.
Currently lists over 2300 packages, located right over here, and thankfully has a good search engine, because the "categories" aren't that helpful to me. (YMMV)
The article author didn't say anything about which OSes were being used, so *shrug*.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
other posters to this thread have suggested using deviant art, but you might do well to observe that deviant art by default licenses all those images free for non-commercial use. I'm not sure if this has changed at all though
Photos.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2003 OSDN.
Likewise, VA/OSDN makes sure in their sourceforge TOS that the owner has agreed to license their code as open source, and they specifically deny the right to remove code from CVS or their download mirrors unless there's a legal problem with it. All this means is that VA can use the code however they want as long as it's under the same license the author used. They don't own the copyright and they can't change the license. The TOS was written by a clueless lawyer and that clause is basically redundant since the owner has already agreed to license code as OSS.
The problem is that the "Comments are owned by the poster" statement is misleading. The owners of Slashdot say that they can use the comments any time and any way they want, without payment or notice. That means, if a Slashdot comment author becomes a CEO of an important company, the owners of Slashdot can publish a book of his comments without payment.
That's why all of my comments are entirely owned by me. I grant no license to Slashdot. except to display my comments in the context in which they were entered. My opinion is that, if the terms of use were considered in court, the terms would be found to be invalid. Especially since, "Comments are owned by the Poster" is misleading authors about the terms.
This paragraph (#6) is intended for text entered in tracker items, mailng lists archives and other posts you, the user, might enter onto SourceForge.net.
(Most sites have similar paragraphs to protect themselves from liability issues)
A project's code on SourceForge.net is different. The OSI license you use to release the code is the license that stands. If we, OSDN, ever decided to fork a project, we would have to follow the same rules and regulations that are governed in the project's OSI license. (no different then anyone else wishing to fork the code)
I hope this clears things up a bit.
Patrick McGovern
Director, SourceForge.net
pat@sf.net
Especially since, "Comments are owned by the Poster" is misleading authors about the terms.
Why is this misleading? Your comments are still owned by you. This means that all copyright rights a copyright holder has accrue to you, and you alone. By posting on Slashdot, you agree to abide by its terms of service, which essentially require you to give Slashdot an open-ended license to copy your comments. But you and you alone still own the comments. In the end, only you and Slashdot have the right to copy your comments. You pose the situation where you become a CEO and Slashdot is allowed to publish your comments, but the other -- and only other -- side of the coin is that if you become a famous CEO, ONLY YOU and Slashdot can publish your comments. That's what it means to be a copyright owner (and licensor to Slashdot).
That's what you get for the ability to post to Slashdot. Those ToS probably won't be found invalid for a number of reasons, the main one being that *you still own the copyright.*