If you don't know how to advertise your product, you probably shouldn't be trying to get it out to everyone that might need it.
Because as it stands right now with the word getting out, plenty of people are going to see SourceForge and shy right away from it. It took/. a week to respond. Ars, Reddit, HackerNews, Google News, they've all already covered this, and tons of people now know to stay the hell away from Sourceforge.
Because that's a far superior way for binary release. I've found plenty of OSS projects by torrent instead of the SF site, and that was just doing a regular google search.
I'll spread the word. If I were you, something else I suggest is (ugh) grabbing yourself copies of the installers and having them uploaded somewhere for dissection by others more qualified than myself. I'm not THAT good but I'm competent enough to turn a presentation into layman's terms for the average joe to understand.
Hey, It's a fucking jumper. Like every other goddamned port on the motherboard.
Run a couple of wires off of it, put a fucking physical switch on the outside of the machine. Hold button in while powering machine on. You may now update your BIOS/EFI.
Jesus, was it THAT hard to come up with something so simple for a solution?
SourceForge doesn't actually pay for most of the servers and bandwidth used to serve up their projects and they never have. All of the downloads are hosted on a network of mirrors run by organisations like universities out of the pure goodness of their heart.
I think it's time to have a serious talk with those providers. We remove SourceForge's mirror providers, we remove SourceForge.
"the files page has the folder GIMP + GTK+ (stable release) with a last modified time of 2014-11-18. In that, GIMP 2.8.14 is the latest with the 2014-11-18 modification date. The previous file, GIMP 2.8.10 has a modification date of 2014-05-29. (This is just shy of 6 months.) The one before that, GIMP 2.8.8 is also last modified 2014-05-29, and the one before that is GIMP 2.8.6 last modified on 2013-06-24. (This one is just shy of 11 months back.)
So the project was abandoned, but a year later, it's still updating files. And it had three releases in the year after it was supposedly abandoned. The last release was just a few days over 6 months ago, and the project has a history of up to 11 months between releases. How does that qualify as "abandoned"?
No, this is a bullshit excuse Sourceforge was hoping no one would delve into the details to call their bullshit on. There is no other way to put it than they flat-out lied about the abandonment."
Oh, and to boot - According to the gimp-win developer, they locked him out of his account.
That's right, SourceForge STOLE THE ACCOUNT using an account called SF-editor1 in order to wrap one of the most popular FOSS projects with a malware installer.
So here's what we do, guys. I've got a really good attorney. Same one that helped me kick EA's ass back in the Spore lawsuit days.
We band together, we find every person that has had this malware pushed on them, and we sue the ever-living shit out of SourceForge in a class-action suit where accepting a settlement is NOT AN OPTION. Knowingly distributing malware, using misleading language to get the malware to install, and the damage the malware does to the user's computer are all entirely actionable in court and we need to band together to put a legal end to this crap once and for all. We now have the evidence in the testimony of the former account holder, we have copies of the malware, we have copies of the installer, we have screencapped evidence of the lies SourceForge has posted. SourceForge is DEAD IN COURT.
Look up Mark Punzalan Law. Let him know Alex from the Spore/EA case sent you.
If you want, I can come forth as class representative again. I will be more than happy to be the headman ripping these people apart in court.
"The editors saw a story with claims relevant to their own area of expertise."
Hijacking accounts with 'sf-editor1' (Who wants the passwords to sf-editor1 through sf-editor3?) is their area of expertise? Yep, definitely sounds like a coverup in not getting the story published faster, and also deleting commented and red-labeled firehose submissions regarding said story just adds fuel to the fire.
Your statement clearly conflicts with screencaps many have of the firehose, where almost EVERY SINGLE STORY regarding this was removed despite comments and being RED status.
Would you care to try again, SoulSkill? You seem to forget how easily the internet can keep track of what you do and when.
My signature is pretty tough to forge. Apparently nobody I've met knows how to properly write a couple of letters in cursive that happen to be in my name. I also write with my right hand yet everything looks as if it were written by the left. There's also a specific jitter to my signature now due to nerve damage in my wrist. Good luck!
"It almost seems like you're interpreting "UV-C" to include the range from 360-380nm."
No, 100-280nm is what I consider. Don't use Aliexpress, nor Alibaba (first off they can't even properly copy/paste data from their own datasheets. Almost every listing is written by a salesperson, not an engineer.) The GOOD SHIT is hidden directly in paper-only catalogs.
Cree most certainly made UV-C LEDs. I'm one of their primary product testers and have been for getting close to a decade (everyone that liked LEDs was pissed off seeing me just blow through a 1,000ct roll of MK-Rs figuring out how to drive them directly off of AC power without any controlling electronics.)
"There are apparently some results indicating that emitters in this range can be germicidal, if you use enough power and enough exposure time'
I refuse to use anything in the UV-A range for germicidal effects, but we already know that exposing insects to blue light kills them in the larval stages. If visible blue light can do that to a MACROSCOPIC organism, microscopic should not be an issue, either.
" If you used a shorter-wavelength emitter, you'd need to downconvert all its output power, losing efficiency"
Shorter-wavelength blue LEDs (plus a different LED base made of silicon carbide) is how Cree is getting 300+ lumens per watt out of a white LED, 5250K at 350mA 3.6V.
An if memory serves correctly, Slashdot one had a story up about how some company developed some new LED from I think selenium that required no conversion phosphor to output white light, within the last year.
http://www.nichia.co.jp/en/pro... - you can contact them for UV-C LEDs, they'll send you a catalog with the less-often purchased UV-B and UV-C diodes there as well. You can also custom-order UV arrays and such.
Cree quit making high-power UV-C LEDs a couple of years ago. HaSun Optoelectronics has 0.5w+ UV-C LEDs. Yes they are expensive. Almost $80 each.
Seoul Semiconductor (rather Seoul Viosys, a subsidiary that focuses on the UV side of LEDs) has high power UV-C LEDs as well, the S265 and S255, for example.
"UV lightsources are required for the highest quality white LEDs, as the fluorescents only downconvert to longer wavelengths, so the white quality is limited by the pump wavelength."
No, we do just fine with 420nm blue LEDs as the base. Cree's latest 300+ lux/w white LED uses a blue LED as its base, not UV.
"Note that commonly available UV emitters (including UV lasers and LEDs and the quantum dots mentioned in the article) are so far out of the effective range to be completely ineffective."
I was playing with UV-C LEDs from Nichia years ago that worked just fine for sterilizing water. It's still in use keeping algae from growing in my aquarium.
Slashdot Mirror
"Carbon-zinc and alkaline (MnO2) batteries will go to complete discharge without any danger."
Bullshit. Carbon-Zinc batteries use the Zinc can as the cathode. Guess what that means?
As you continue to discharge the battery, the case falls apart because it is eating itself. You get a leak.
Because whatever they paid is about to cost them a whole lot more money and good will.
If you don't know how to advertise your product, you probably shouldn't be trying to get it out to everyone that might need it.
Because as it stands right now with the word getting out, plenty of people are going to see SourceForge and shy right away from it. It took /. a week to respond. Ars, Reddit, HackerNews, Google News, they've all already covered this, and tons of people now know to stay the hell away from Sourceforge.
Uhh, you *DO* know what Bittorrent is, right?
Because that's a far superior way for binary release. I've found plenty of OSS projects by torrent instead of the SF site, and that was just doing a regular google search.
I'll spread the word. If I were you, something else I suggest is (ugh) grabbing yourself copies of the installers and having them uploaded somewhere for dissection by others more qualified than myself. I'm not THAT good but I'm competent enough to turn a presentation into layman's terms for the average joe to understand.
Well, that's a possibility.
Make the board, spread the word.
Meh, don't thank me. It's something that while I feel I must do, I'd much rather not have to do it, because of some attachment or another.
I see several that I voted up totally removed (the tell-tale 'imprinting' of the bar when you vote being the giveaway.)
Every story I see back through Wednesday is one I hadn't voted on.
Hey, It's a fucking jumper. Like every other goddamned port on the motherboard.
Run a couple of wires off of it, put a fucking physical switch on the outside of the machine. Hold button in while powering machine on. You may now update your BIOS/EFI.
Jesus, was it THAT hard to come up with something so simple for a solution?
SourceForge doesn't actually pay for most of the servers and bandwidth used to serve up their projects and they never have. All of the downloads are hosted on a network of mirrors run by organisations like universities out of the pure goodness of their heart.
I think it's time to have a serious talk with those providers. We remove SourceForge's mirror providers, we remove SourceForge.
http://danluu.com/slashdot-sou...
SF claims the project was abandoned in 2013.
To quote another user from Ars:
"the files page has the folder GIMP + GTK+ (stable release) with a last modified time of 2014-11-18. In that, GIMP 2.8.14 is the latest with the 2014-11-18 modification date. The previous file, GIMP 2.8.10 has a modification date of 2014-05-29. (This is just shy of 6 months.) The one before that, GIMP 2.8.8 is also last modified 2014-05-29, and the one before that is GIMP 2.8.6 last modified on 2013-06-24. (This one is just shy of 11 months back.)
So the project was abandoned, but a year later, it's still updating files. And it had three releases in the year after it was supposedly abandoned. The last release was just a few days over 6 months ago, and the project has a history of up to 11 months between releases. How does that qualify as "abandoned"?
No, this is a bullshit excuse Sourceforge was hoping no one would delve into the details to call their bullshit on. There is no other way to put it than they flat-out lied about the abandonment."
Oh, and to boot - According to the gimp-win developer, they locked him out of his account.
That's right, SourceForge STOLE THE ACCOUNT using an account called SF-editor1 in order to wrap one of the most popular FOSS projects with a malware installer.
So here's what we do, guys. I've got a really good attorney. Same one that helped me kick EA's ass back in the Spore lawsuit days.
We band together, we find every person that has had this malware pushed on them, and we sue the ever-living shit out of SourceForge in a class-action suit where accepting a settlement is NOT AN OPTION. Knowingly distributing malware, using misleading language to get the malware to install, and the damage the malware does to the user's computer are all entirely actionable in court and we need to band together to put a legal end to this crap once and for all. We now have the evidence in the testimony of the former account holder, we have copies of the malware, we have copies of the installer, we have screencapped evidence of the lies SourceForge has posted. SourceForge is DEAD IN COURT.
Look up Mark Punzalan Law. Let him know Alex from the Spore/EA case sent you.
If you want, I can come forth as class representative again. I will be more than happy to be the headman ripping these people apart in court.
" For example, we're not going to run a 5-year-old story no matter how many people vote it up"
This is slashdot. 5 years old story is considered RECENT.
We've already seen you post stories over two years old, so I don't know who you're trying to fool.
"The editors saw a story with claims relevant to their own area of expertise."
Hijacking accounts with 'sf-editor1' (Who wants the passwords to sf-editor1 through sf-editor3?) is their area of expertise? Yep, definitely sounds like a coverup in not getting the story published faster, and also deleting commented and red-labeled firehose submissions regarding said story just adds fuel to the fire.
Your statement clearly conflicts with screencaps many have of the firehose, where almost EVERY SINGLE STORY regarding this was removed despite comments and being RED status.
Would you care to try again, SoulSkill? You seem to forget how easily the internet can keep track of what you do and when.
My signature is pretty tough to forge. Apparently nobody I've met knows how to properly write a couple of letters in cursive that happen to be in my name. I also write with my right hand yet everything looks as if it were written by the left. There's also a specific jitter to my signature now due to nerve damage in my wrist. Good luck!
I'd require signature and DNA. I'm pretty much leaving both when I sign for something and put my hand on the receipt/check while doing so.
"Two items are occasionally highlighted at once."
So? I still see that AND I see shit like two icons being blended together moving between windows on Windows.
Glitches happen on EVERY OS, professional or not.
"It almost seems like you're interpreting "UV-C" to include the range from 360-380nm."
No, 100-280nm is what I consider. Don't use Aliexpress, nor Alibaba (first off they can't even properly copy/paste data from their own datasheets. Almost every listing is written by a salesperson, not an engineer.) The GOOD SHIT is hidden directly in paper-only catalogs.
Cree most certainly made UV-C LEDs. I'm one of their primary product testers and have been for getting close to a decade (everyone that liked LEDs was pissed off seeing me just blow through a 1,000ct roll of MK-Rs figuring out how to drive them directly off of AC power without any controlling electronics.)
"There are apparently some results indicating that emitters in this range can be germicidal, if you use enough power and enough exposure time'
I refuse to use anything in the UV-A range for germicidal effects, but we already know that exposing insects to blue light kills them in the larval stages. If visible blue light can do that to a MACROSCOPIC organism, microscopic should not be an issue, either.
" If you used a shorter-wavelength emitter, you'd need to downconvert all its output power, losing efficiency"
Shorter-wavelength blue LEDs (plus a different LED base made of silicon carbide) is how Cree is getting 300+ lumens per watt out of a white LED, 5250K at 350mA 3.6V.
An if memory serves correctly, Slashdot one had a story up about how some company developed some new LED from I think selenium that required no conversion phosphor to output white light, within the last year.
http://www.nichia.co.jp/en/pro... - you can contact them for UV-C LEDs, they'll send you a catalog with the less-often purchased UV-B and UV-C diodes there as well. You can also custom-order UV arrays and such.
Cree quit making high-power UV-C LEDs a couple of years ago. HaSun Optoelectronics has 0.5w+ UV-C LEDs. Yes they are expensive. Almost $80 each.
Seoul Semiconductor (rather Seoul Viosys, a subsidiary that focuses on the UV side of LEDs) has high power UV-C LEDs as well, the S265 and S255, for example.
You put the UV LED inside the water filtration system, in direct contact with the water.
"UV lightsources are required for the highest quality white LEDs, as the fluorescents only downconvert to longer wavelengths, so the white quality is limited by the pump wavelength."
No, we do just fine with 420nm blue LEDs as the base. Cree's latest 300+ lux/w white LED uses a blue LED as its base, not UV.
"solid-state emitters in that range have very low power and short life, at least last time I checked."
What, a decade ago? The UV-C LEDs keeping my aquarium water algae-free have been in operation for at least five years.
"Note that commonly available UV emitters (including UV lasers and LEDs and the quantum dots mentioned in the article) are so far out of the effective range to be completely ineffective."
Bullshit.
http://www.hexatechinc.com/uv-...
http://www.cisuvc.com/
http://www.ledsmagazine.com/ug...
I was playing with UV-C LEDs from Nichia years ago that worked just fine for sterilizing water. It's still in use keeping algae from growing in my aquarium.
https://plus.google.com/+gimp/...
Even the GIMP people don't want you bundling GIMP with your shitware.