From: Benny M. <ben...@gm...> - 2013-11-08 19:57:36
|
2013/11/8 John Ralls <jr...@ce...> > > On Nov 8, 2013, at 12:42 AM, Benny Malengier <ben...@gm...> > wrote: > > Nick, All, > > Did you see this: > http://www.gimp.org/ news: > GIMP Windows Installers move from Sourceforge to ftp.gimp.org > > Apparently SF starts to use a download program for some downloads. > If this is the case for Gramps, I would not be ok with this. At the moment > it seems for Gramps still the exe is downloaded, but the adds on the > download page start to be hard to distinguish from normal content. > > > I think The GIMP team might have over-reacted a bit, and the author of the > blog post [1] that they refer to in that announcement certainly overstated > his case. A more reasoned discussion [2] by one of the admins from Portable > sheds a bit more light, as does the original SF announcement [3]. > > The most important thing is that it's opt-in on the part of the project, > so there's no risk at present of our installer being contaminated in this > way unless we agree to it. I certainly hope that we wouldn't. > No we wouldn't. I agree GIMP overreacted as this is opt-in. On the other hand, we do have some money from donations in case we want to set up ftp ourself. But then we need to maintain that ourself... It would be interesting to know 1. how much would ftp hosting actually cost us? 2. if we add our own simple google Add sidebar on our own Download page, would that generate the money the ftp costs? It seems SF can generate quite some revenue like that. In a year we have *111,887 *downloads, so how much does 111887 page views pay from google ads? Benny > > Regards, > John Ralls > > [1] > http://www.gluster.org/2013/08/how-far-the-once-mighty-sourceforge-has-fallen/ > [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6262347 > [3] > https://sourceforge.net/blog/today-we-offer-devshare-beta-a-sustainable-way-to-fund-open-source-software/ > |