SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the this-is-not-the-host-you-are-looking-for... dept.
Google, or someone using their hosting service, noted that SourceForge had established a mirror to the official GIMP-for-Windows site and were now offering downloads which contained adware:
It appears that +SourceForge took over the control of the 'GIMP for Windows' account and is now distributing an ads-enabled installer of GIMP. They also locked out original owner of the account, Jernej Simončič, who has been building the Windows versions of GIMP for our project for years.
So far they haven't replied to provide explanations. Therefore, we remind you again that GIMP only provides builds for Windows via its official Downloads page.
SourceForge's mirrored sites facility is described thus:
The Open Source Mirror Directory is an extension to our existing software directory, where we'll be mirroring projects that are not hosted on SourceForge, and SourceForge projects that have been abandoned.
The problem, though, is that GIMP-for-Windows is not an abandoned project, but moved from SourceForge to Google because the writers "had concerns about the presence of misleading third-party ads on SourceForge".
SourceForge has responded, acknowledging that Gimp-Win had abandoned SourceForge due to misleading ads and claim "They were not alone in those concerns — we were also concerned — leading us to establish a program to enable users and developers to help us remove misleading and confusing ads." They also admit "Mirrored projects are sometimes used to deliver easy-to-decline third-party offers..." which suggests that they have merely changed the way that they deliver their ads - but not necessarily the ad's content. So, some might say, they've rectified the situation by providing both misleading ads and misleading hosting.
SourceForge also say "Since our change to mirror GIMP-Win, we have received no requests by the original author to resume use of this project. We welcome further discussion about how SourceForge can best serve the GIMP-Win author." Perhaps letting the writer choose where he hosts his project would be a good place to start.
Sourceforge hijacks GIMP For Windows project, adds malware to downloads
SourceForge (SF) has taken over control of the GIMP for Windows SF project and is now distributing an adware/malwared installer for GIMP. They also locked out the maintainer, Jernej Simončiči. Sourceforge claims it was "abandoned" and they're providing a service by "mirroring" the original, though it's unclear how much value malware adds for the end user, rather than for SF. (This comes two years after SF claiming its malware was just "misunderstood".)
Since being busted, SF is now serving an .exe that matches that at the official download site.
Other projects recently hijacked by SF include many Apache projects (Allura, Derby, Directory Studio, the Apache HTTP server, Hadoop, OpenOffice, Solr, and Subversion); Mozilla Firefox, Thunderbird, and FireFTP; Evolution and Open-Xchange; Drupal and WordPress; Eclipse, Aptana, Komodo, MonoDevelop, and NetBeans; VLC, Audacious, Banshee.fm, Helix, and Tomahawk media players; and many others.
[Editor's Comment: First Submission and 2nd Submission. Submissions significantly edited before publication]
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:42PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:17PM
What was the issue if I may ask? I always like bug review for some reason.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:01PM
(Score: 2, Funny) by KGIII on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:46PM
Well, at least your signature is honest and accurate. ;)
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @09:18AM
I hope whoever moderated that post as spam gets his moderation rights revoked (unless it was by error, and the moderator informed you about the error). Whatever you may think of that post, there's one thing it definitely isn't, and that is spam.
And while I'm not a fan of the suggestion that all moderator names should be published, I think it should be public who moderates a post as spam. A spam moderation is not an ordinary moderation. It should not be treated as one.
Maybe the cost of spam moderation should be increased to match the severity of the moderation; say you need three mod points to mod someone spam. There's fortunately very little spam on this site, and moderation points are given daily, so I don't think the extra cost would have a negative impact on moderation of actual spam; moreover, if spam should ever get a major problem, such a change could easily reverted.
To avoid spam moderation by mistake, a spam moderation request probably should also come with a confirmation question, for example:
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @09:33PM
I think this new system is bad. Just edit the post minimalistic and move on. Or no editing at all. I want to see the persons submission not the editors rewrite or interpretation of it. I feel like I need to look at both versions to see if I missed something. Editors job; Fix: links, typos, grammar(maybe), and after it's pointed out in the comments - incorrect information. Because what's incorrect to you may not be to someone else.
Feeling like I need to review that other site. Please don't make me.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:46PM
So what is stopping you from reading the original submission now? You can even fix: links, typos, grammar (maybe), and find your own incorrect information. Because what is incorrect to you may not be to someone else. Just skip past the summary, because you don't want to read that, and click on the link at the bottom. I can guarantee that there will be no rewrite or interpretation of it, in fact there will "no editing at all" - which is one of the options that you say you would prefer. And when we have a merged story from 2 or more different submitters, we even give you all the links.
Or, if that is too difficult, we can do that for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @12:28AM
Your job (as editor) is to fix typos and links, mostly. Why then do we have two copies of a story if that's all your doing. If you want to submit a story you can. Don't make me "look" to see if the story I'm reading is yours or the submitters. Just do away with the extra copy of a submission and fess up to any changes that you do that are significant. If I have to run kdiff on the two copies to see what you did then i guess it's time for a new site. No one cares if you correct little things; that's your job. We (I) want to read the submission as written without clicking it then backing up to comment on it. Seams foolish to me.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday May 29 2015, @06:55AM
Nobody is making you look - you choose to do that yourself.
The topic under discussion is clearly shown in the summary. Where it comes from is, to a large degree, entirely irrelevant. That is not said to belittle contributors or the submissions. Without their efforts and the subs we haven't got a site. But the site does try to output a quality product, which is something that not all our contributors are able to do. My job is far more than you think - you can read the Guide to Editing on the wiki to see what it entails - it includes making the submission appropriate to this site and acceptable to the majority of the community members.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday May 29 2015, @08:24AM
The summary should be just that - a factual summary of the story under discussion. It doesn't matter who submits it - it shouldn't contain personal views to any significant extent. It shouldn't have a particular bias, it should be balanced and it should be fair. It should also provoke thought and further discussion. The place for all personal views is in the comments. Now, everyone has some bias when they write a story and we do not attempt to remove every nuance. The submitter has made an effort to submit a story and that should be respected. However, the editors are supposed to be removing the majority of the personal views and ensuring that the story that hits the front page is as fair as we can make it. If you really want to get the personal viewpoint, please read the comments.
The reason that we now provide a link at all is because I made an edit but some felt that I had not provided a balanced and fair story. The submitter believes that I had put words into his mouth. I made an error and I have apologised for that. That does not imply that every other story over the last 15 months or so has been incorrectly edited, or that there is anything substantially wrong with our procedures. It was simply a human error. Nevertheless, I believe that this site should continue to offer intelligent stories in a fair and balanced way to provide material for discussion by the community. If you think that the site should be something different then you will need to start pushing for major changes to our long term vision, goals and aspirations all of which have been expressed in great detail on this site.