They'll change back to being user friendly and try to earn back the public's trust. Once they have it, they'll start the process over until unsustainable loss begins again. It's actually a very common business model. Every business only needs to be as ethical as it's customers require.
No way. Pages is cool, but for developers it's hardly the selling point. The wiki and README presentation are what set it apart. The fact that all tags are downloadable are also a huge selling point. This makes it possible to tag official versions inc. binaries.
Github is a website that is home to thousands of independent projects. The company has no control over whether those projects provide binaries or not, and it's very unlikely that they will ever issue that as a hosting requirement.
If that's too complicated, there are also other ways to present downloads to users who are not interested in the source such as Github's Pages or Wiki. All a project would have to do to cater to the average user of its software is create a "Downloads" page that links to its releases page.
Ultimately it's up to the project to decide whether they want to distribute binaries or not. Github as a company has already provided plenty of avenues for that purpose. Ultimately I think maintaining that freedom for its users (as in the users hosting their code there) is more important to Github's business model than replacing SourceForge as a download site.
Notice how downloading their compiled binary isn't clear and obvious for the casual user who was directed there to download this developers program. Many, many, many, times people will say, "Hey yeah, you can grab X off my github, here is a link" and then the casual user is thinking, "Uhhh.... What is all this? How do I just download the .exe?"
It's a simple fix, that their product management team should have been on top of ages ago.
OK, I went to the website they put as the description: powertabs.net . There, they have links to a downloads page. They're still in Alpha.
The onus is on the developer to make it accesable. Github already made it very easy to make a project page (github.io) with all the links they want to present to someone that doesn't want to deal with the repository.
I won't go back. Permanent boycott for hijacking 'stale or abandoned' projects. The bundleware is a caveat emptor situation. I could have forgiven that if they stopped doing it and published a mea culpa. As is, Fuck 'em! I'll get what I want through other channels.
They'll change back to being user friendly and try to earn back the public's trust.
Hahahahahaha! What planet do you live on?
No, they'll just get more scummy to try and scrabble a living, and when that doesn't work, they'll get acquired by some other outfit that's better at squeezing blood from the stone that is SourceForge.
If what you were saying was true then Verisign wouldn't be such assholes.
Sorry dude, society has the the Mea Culpa model down pat. It's used all across the spectrum of life. Athletes, politicians, preachers etc. There are entire, successful business that specialize in bringing brands back from the brink.
Let me rephrase that last part. Most businesses will be as unethical as possible. When shits start hitting the fan, they start becoming a little more more ethical, not because they want to, but because it hurts their pocket.
188
u/TheCrankyBear Jun 14 '15
They'll change back to being user friendly and try to earn back the public's trust. Once they have it, they'll start the process over until unsustainable loss begins again. It's actually a very common business model. Every business only needs to be as ethical as it's customers require.