Specifically: "In recent media interviews, Lazar claimed he had easily hacked into Clinton’s controversial private email server. But the Justice Department statement did not confirm this claim, and a law enforcement official said investigators did not find evidence to support the claim."
They're trying to pass this off as nothing bad happened, so it's no big deal. Except she wiped the server before turning it over - OF COURSE they aren't going to find evidence of hacking now, after the evidence has been destroyed.
So I just got a failure that makes me think that the problem isn't gone. To test out the new measures against Malware, I tried downloading PDFCreator. This is off the SourceForge pages, never visiting the project homepage to receive their malware riddled installer. The SourceForge link is a web-installer, so the thing that SourceForge can scan has no Malware embedded in it. But the.exe that the installer downloads does.
Is there a process for notifying about bad actors? Will repeat offenders be permanently banned?
Sure, Molyneux, overpromises, and doesn't understand "scope" but he did give us the god-genre and gems such as with Populous, Syndicate, Dungeon Keeper, Magic Carpet.
I feel like this undersells how great the team at Bullfrog was. For me, Molyneux always felt similar to John Romero - started off as part of a great team, but was significantly less impressive when put in the primary lead position.
Agreed. Lionhead was full of disappointment for me. Black & White, which has performance degradation bugs that make the game unplayable on a 10-years-later modern PC. Fable 3, with game-ending bugs (shooting range, anyone?) that were never fixed. The Fable 2 PC port that never came. Either Black & White, with their suicidally stupid AI.
I would feel differently if the games were such that I could go back and play them today with fond nostalgia, but their never-addressed quality issues make the whole endeavor too much of an unfun hassle.
I remember REAPER's name due to Justin Frankel, but never looked at it much. Does it support stuff like the devices from Saffire? Can it do so on Linux through WINE?
I'm not sure what you're nope-ing. I flat out said:
I'll help. This is what I was noping:
Give them a chance to fuck up, first.
I took that as an admonishment from you to remove the blacklist I've put them in, more or less immediately, due to the expressed intentions by Logan. Call what I'm doing whatever you will - self-protection, blacklist, boycott, blackball, etc. It's the same effect for me, there is no free pass here. Demonstrate actual change on the scale of the bullshit that killed SourceForge in the first place, THEN the names come off the lists.
Yes, we do. This is protection for the developers against when SourceForge screws over the next Gimp or Nmap - the presence of a delete function adds credibility to the upcoming promises to never load Malware and will serve to restrain any future SourceForge dabblings in reputation-destroying shenanigans.
If you are legitimately worried about your favorite project going closed source, download the source while it is available. Developers should be free to leave if they want to.
That's pretty much my point. Call me paranoid but having an installed base of software, WITH AUTOUPDATE, makes it trivial to sneak spyware out to a wide array of computers quickly.
Nope. Talk is cheap (although buying a company is not), I'll be waiting to see the effects of the actual changes that are made. The blocks stay in place until SourceForge's momentum is actually reversed.
I'm an aberration, a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde amalgam of Cynical Asshole and Reasonable Normal Person. Also, this resonates with me: http://www.quickmeme.com/img/f...
Interested in fixing what they bought, is not the same thing as actually making the fixes. DevShare is gone, who is to say it won't come right back? Zombie clones are still in place. SourceForge will remain blacklisted on the networks I administer until the fixes are in place for a while, have been demonstrated to have been made in earnest, and have binding promises backing up the expectation that the good behavior will continue.
I beg you, don't recommend FileZilla. SourceForge may have changed, but Tim (botg) was more than happy to take blood money from DevShare. There are a few good alternative programs out there. For example - WinSCP - give someone a chance who voluntarily cleaned up their act, instead of 'zilla who would have kept on going indefinitely with infecting users' computers for money.
I was looking around the thread for a spot to reply and this seemed like it was as good a place as any.
I'd like to offer my two cents, with some compound interest besides. Let's start with the major problems that SourceForge has:
* Reputation as a software source blasted to hell from years of misleading download buttons, the DevShare program, and badgersputumously stupid double-speak from its leadership.
* Reputation as a software hosting site blasted to double-hell due to things like the Gimp debacle and an inability on the part of developers to delete projects.
* Lack of software that anyone would want, due to quality projects fleeing from the aforementioned reputation suicide.
This isn't getting into any of the technical things that developers would like to see (Unicode, IPv6, various flavors of VCS, etc) but those will be covered below as well.
My recommendations on each point are as follows. First, reputation as a source:
* As soon as you can, create a legally binding terms of service (binding Sourceforge) that expressly forbids Mal/Ad/Badware. No unwanted shit, ever, even if it is so trivial as a shortcut to Yahoo on the desktop.
* Create a feedback mechanism where offending projects (like PDFCreator) can be reported and quickly suspended. Be strict about this - the loss of revenue from one project is no where near as hard to recover from as the loss of reputation. Reputation is extremely difficult to buy.
* Listen to advanced users on such things as creating download links that aren't hostile to wget. For that item specifically, since Devshare is down there is no longer a financial reason for obfuscating download links. But in general, attempt to build the site where people in the know can get what they need, easily.
* (Maybe) Sponsor forks of projects that were participants in DevShare. The assholes behind those projects profited from SourceForge's reputation suicide - they are in need of a housecleaning as much as SourceForge itself was.
Second, reputation as a development platform:
* Guarantee (again, in a legally binding way for SourceForge) that developers can close up shop at any time on Sourceforge and delete all traces of their project, without SourceForge intervention. The GIMP debacle is a perfect example. What's done is done - if someone wants to leave, you are doing your reputation no favors in keeping a zombie clone around.
* IPv6, Unicode, additional VCSes if they make sense (SourceForge already offers CVS, SVN, Git and Mercurial, correct?) - listen to developer feedback and if something makes good sense to add, do it.
* Listen to the various missteps that Github continues to make, and offer an alternative. Don't censor projects (unless it's something like Sarin-Nerve-Gas Maker 2.0 and the FBI tells you that you must), etc.
Lastly, there are scant few ways to address the severe lack of popular, high quality software projects. SourceForge lost a LOT of good software - VLC, Gimp, Notepad++, take a look at the Wikipedia records of "Project of the Month" and most of those are no longer at SourceForge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). SourceForge has left... Clonezilla, NAS4Free, Filezilla (DevShare pariah), PDFCreator (Bundleware leper), 7-Zip, perhaps a handful of others. There isn't nearly the compelling selection that used to be available.
Being a mirror for open source software is probably a good thing, once the guarantee to only distribute clean stuff is in place ( in stark contrast to someone like Download.com ). But you're going to have to prepare the site to receive projects back, and hope that some eventually recognize the merit of your efforts.
Try reading it again, a little harder. I'll give you hints, "stigma" means a taint to reputation, often unfair. "Electorate" can be used as a pejorative (and is, quite often) since it is made up of terribly uninformed yet active-enough-to-leave-the-house yahoos.
I realize I was a little unclear about my meaning, but it's been interesting to see how many come out of the woodwork to argue (in agreement) with me...
Right, but I believe that the same irrational fear that causes people to wet themselves when they think that another fission reactor might get built (so we need to run the old ones forever.... doh) will be played upon by the anti-nuke crowd once fusion reactors become more of a practical reality. "It's only radioactivating the reactor itself" isn't going to be a good defense against Greenpeace when they send people to chain themselves to the front doors and sing Kumbaya.
Since you felt so strongly about this that it needed repetition, I'd like to hear how I'm "the true problem". Would you agree, that there is a stigma attached to the concept of radiation? Is it your general view that the average schmuck-with-a-vote believes that the barest hint of exposure to radiations will cause their lumpy demise?
Not really sure where you're trying to go with this, except for being so twitchy that you pick arguments with people who probably agree with you.
Wow... people like the original poster are the true problem. Everyone else, let's try to understand the actual facts about radiation. Obligatory xkcd:
I think there's a reading comprehension fail happening here. You've declared me to be an enemy of nuclear power, and then made the same point that I was alluding to. And since we're trading comics: http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff... - intentional or unintentional, there has been plenty of propaganda to make people irrationally fear radiation.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the many things that points to how "Rules-for-thee, Not-for-me" this still is:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Specifically: "In recent media interviews, Lazar claimed he had easily hacked into Clinton’s controversial private email server. But the Justice Department statement did not confirm this claim, and a law enforcement official said investigators did not find evidence to support the claim."
They're trying to pass this off as nothing bad happened, so it's no big deal. Except she wiped the server before turning it over - OF COURSE they aren't going to find evidence of hacking now, after the evidence has been destroyed.
So I just got a failure that makes me think that the problem isn't gone. To test out the new measures against Malware, I tried downloading PDFCreator. This is off the SourceForge pages, never visiting the project homepage to receive their malware riddled installer. The SourceForge link is a web-installer, so the thing that SourceForge can scan has no Malware embedded in it. But the .exe that the installer downloads does.
Is there a process for notifying about bad actors? Will repeat offenders be permanently banned?
Sure, Molyneux, overpromises, and doesn't understand "scope" but he did give us the god-genre and gems such as with Populous, Syndicate, Dungeon Keeper, Magic Carpet.
I feel like this undersells how great the team at Bullfrog was. For me, Molyneux always felt similar to John Romero - started off as part of a great team, but was significantly less impressive when put in the primary lead position.
Agreed. Lionhead was full of disappointment for me. Black & White, which has performance degradation bugs that make the game unplayable on a 10-years-later modern PC. Fable 3, with game-ending bugs (shooting range, anyone?) that were never fixed. The Fable 2 PC port that never came. Either Black & White, with their suicidally stupid AI.
I would feel differently if the games were such that I could go back and play them today with fond nostalgia, but their never-addressed quality issues make the whole endeavor too much of an unfun hassle.
I have a couple dozen each of 520 and 530 models deployed right now. Those machines have no problems with their drives.
I remember REAPER's name due to Justin Frankel, but never looked at it much. Does it support stuff like the devices from Saffire? Can it do so on Linux through WINE?
You don't own them. Even if you are secretly Whipslash.
I'm not sure what you're nope-ing. I flat out said:
I'll help. This is what I was noping:
Give them a chance to fuck up, first.
I took that as an admonishment from you to remove the blacklist I've put them in, more or less immediately, due to the expressed intentions by Logan. Call what I'm doing whatever you will - self-protection, blacklist, boycott, blackball, etc. It's the same effect for me, there is no free pass here. Demonstrate actual change on the scale of the bullshit that killed SourceForge in the first place, THEN the names come off the lists.
Yes, we do. This is protection for the developers against when SourceForge screws over the next Gimp or Nmap - the presence of a delete function adds credibility to the upcoming promises to never load Malware and will serve to restrain any future SourceForge dabblings in reputation-destroying shenanigans.
If you are legitimately worried about your favorite project going closed source, download the source while it is available. Developers should be free to leave if they want to.
That's pretty much my point. Call me paranoid but having an installed base of software, WITH AUTOUPDATE, makes it trivial to sneak spyware out to a wide array of computers quickly.
Thank you to the folks who recommended Vivaldi elsewhere on the page. I'm currently giving it a try.
If this goes through, Opera is getting ripped out of every computer I had it on. Time to go looking for a replacement browser.
The difference in culture surrounding privacy between the Chinese and Norwegians is the dark side of Earth's moon to Mercury's sun-side.
Nope. Talk is cheap (although buying a company is not), I'll be waiting to see the effects of the actual changes that are made. The blocks stay in place until SourceForge's momentum is actually reversed.
I'm an aberration, a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde amalgam of Cynical Asshole and Reasonable Normal Person. Also, this resonates with me: http://www.quickmeme.com/img/f...
Interested in fixing what they bought, is not the same thing as actually making the fixes. DevShare is gone, who is to say it won't come right back? Zombie clones are still in place. SourceForge will remain blacklisted on the networks I administer until the fixes are in place for a while, have been demonstrated to have been made in earnest, and have binding promises backing up the expectation that the good behavior will continue.
Huge applause for you on that. An excellent move.
I beg you, don't recommend FileZilla. SourceForge may have changed, but Tim (botg) was more than happy to take blood money from DevShare. There are a few good alternative programs out there. For example - WinSCP - give someone a chance who voluntarily cleaned up their act, instead of 'zilla who would have kept on going indefinitely with infecting users' computers for money.
I was looking around the thread for a spot to reply and this seemed like it was as good a place as any.
... Clonezilla, NAS4Free, Filezilla (DevShare pariah), PDFCreator (Bundleware leper), 7-Zip, perhaps a handful of others. There isn't nearly the compelling selection that used to be available.
I'd like to offer my two cents, with some compound interest besides. Let's start with the major problems that SourceForge has:
* Reputation as a software source blasted to hell from years of misleading download buttons, the DevShare program, and badgersputumously stupid double-speak from its leadership.
* Reputation as a software hosting site blasted to double-hell due to things like the Gimp debacle and an inability on the part of developers to delete projects.
* Lack of software that anyone would want, due to quality projects fleeing from the aforementioned reputation suicide.
This isn't getting into any of the technical things that developers would like to see (Unicode, IPv6, various flavors of VCS, etc) but those will be covered below as well.
My recommendations on each point are as follows. First, reputation as a source:
* As soon as you can, create a legally binding terms of service (binding Sourceforge) that expressly forbids Mal/Ad/Badware. No unwanted shit, ever, even if it is so trivial as a shortcut to Yahoo on the desktop.
* Create a feedback mechanism where offending projects (like PDFCreator) can be reported and quickly suspended. Be strict about this - the loss of revenue from one project is no where near as hard to recover from as the loss of reputation. Reputation is extremely difficult to buy.
* Listen to advanced users on such things as creating download links that aren't hostile to wget. For that item specifically, since Devshare is down there is no longer a financial reason for obfuscating download links. But in general, attempt to build the site where people in the know can get what they need, easily.
* (Maybe) Sponsor forks of projects that were participants in DevShare. The assholes behind those projects profited from SourceForge's reputation suicide - they are in need of a housecleaning as much as SourceForge itself was.
Second, reputation as a development platform:
* Guarantee (again, in a legally binding way for SourceForge) that developers can close up shop at any time on Sourceforge and delete all traces of their project, without SourceForge intervention. The GIMP debacle is a perfect example. What's done is done - if someone wants to leave, you are doing your reputation no favors in keeping a zombie clone around.
* IPv6, Unicode, additional VCSes if they make sense (SourceForge already offers CVS, SVN, Git and Mercurial, correct?) - listen to developer feedback and if something makes good sense to add, do it.
* Listen to the various missteps that Github continues to make, and offer an alternative. Don't censor projects (unless it's something like Sarin-Nerve-Gas Maker 2.0 and the FBI tells you that you must), etc.
Lastly, there are scant few ways to address the severe lack of popular, high quality software projects. SourceForge lost a LOT of good software - VLC, Gimp, Notepad++, take a look at the Wikipedia records of "Project of the Month" and most of those are no longer at SourceForge ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). SourceForge has left
Being a mirror for open source software is probably a good thing, once the guarantee to only distribute clean stuff is in place ( in stark contrast to someone like Download.com ). But you're going to have to prepare the site to receive projects back, and hope that some eventually recognize the merit of your efforts.
Running down a tangent in this conversation, I had thought that fusors used deuterium. Wikipedia repeats this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Have you ever seen one where someone used plain hydrogen gas as their source? I'd like to read up on that.
I'll just leave this here ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Try reading it again, a little harder. I'll give you hints, "stigma" means a taint to reputation, often unfair. "Electorate" can be used as a pejorative (and is, quite often) since it is made up of terribly uninformed yet active-enough-to-leave-the-house yahoos.
...
I realize I was a little unclear about my meaning, but it's been interesting to see how many come out of the woodwork to argue (in agreement) with me
Right, but I believe that the same irrational fear that causes people to wet themselves when they think that another fission reactor might get built (so we need to run the old ones forever .... doh) will be played upon by the anti-nuke crowd once fusion reactors become more of a practical reality. "It's only radioactivating the reactor itself" isn't going to be a good defense against Greenpeace when they send people to chain themselves to the front doors and sing Kumbaya.
Since you felt so strongly about this that it needed repetition, I'd like to hear how I'm "the true problem". Would you agree, that there is a stigma attached to the concept of radiation? Is it your general view that the average schmuck-with-a-vote believes that the barest hint of exposure to radiations will cause their lumpy demise?
Not really sure where you're trying to go with this, except for being so twitchy that you pick arguments with people who probably agree with you.
Wow... people like the original poster are the true problem. Everyone else, let's try to understand the actual facts about radiation. Obligatory xkcd:
I think there's a reading comprehension fail happening here. You've declared me to be an enemy of nuclear power, and then made the same point that I was alluding to. And since we're trading comics: http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff... - intentional or unintentional, there has been plenty of propaganda to make people irrationally fear radiation.
Wikipedia has two great articles (go figure, the good ones are outside of election coverage topics) I would recommend:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Also, it would seem that I misremembered the half-life of a proton in our Sun's core. It's a billion years; my millions of years is wrongish.