Where to store software/music/etc...

[Roger Hare]

I have a piece of music-related software, a draft version of which is (almost) in a state where it could be released to an unsuspecting world.

 

Question: What is the most 'suitable' location for such software? I am wondering about SourceForge or GitHub. Do any readers of this forum

have any observations/opinions about these locations?

 

The (simpler) options are, I suppose, DropBox or GoogleDrive. I already have archives of  Chess material on these locations, but I'm not

entirely convinced that they are the best locations for actual software (as opposed to simple documents).

 

Any thoughts?

 

Thank you.

[alex_holden]

I think Github is a good choice if it's an open source project and you want to encourage others to contribute improvements to your work, though there is a bit of a learning curve - it's not just upload a zip file and forget about it.

[John Wild]

Box.com  gives you 10GB of storage, with a single file limit of 250MB for free.

There are several levels of subscription giving you higher levels of storage, starting (I think) at £5.50 per month for 100GB with 2GB single file limit.

 

[RAc]

well, to me the issue is less cost but rather 1) long-term availability and 2) trustworthieness. I personally wouldn't ever run software on my computer that comes from completly unmonitored sources like dropbox or other hosters. If something comes from github, I generally take a brief look over the sources to be reasonably safe that the binaries were created from trustworthy sources. Even if there should be no source available, I'd probably rather download software from Github or Sourceforge than anywhere else. Except maybe from the home page of reputed and established software companies such as Corel that give away "free" (as we all know, there ain't such a thing as free software, but that's a different story) stripped down versions of their commercial suites of "leftover" products. But run a binary from some anonymous file hoster? Never.

 

Thus, my personal answer would be Github or sourceforge. Then again, I'm the kind of person who - given the choice - perfers commerical over Open Source or garage manufactured software, so if there is a package for sale available anywhere that suits my hardware, I'd go for that one.

 

Edited October 3, 2020 by RAc

[JimR]

GitHub is the new SourceForge, I have read. If, of course, you are willing to accept changes to your program.

[Roger Hare]

Thank you alex_holden, John Wild and RAc.

 

To keep it simple, I won't quote directly, but taking the points you made (in no particular order):

 

0) Much of what you say co-incides with my own view(s), I deliberately didn't state my views because I didn't
want to influence any comments.

 

Specifically:

 

1) My inclination is towards either SourceForge or GitHub - possibly the latter. There was some sort of
rammie regarding SourceForge a few years back (4-5?). They were alleged to have been sticking 'hooks' onto
contributors software, or something. Supposedly this was sorted out, but that sort of thing leaves a doubt
in one's mind...

 

2) I note that there is a 'learning curve' for GitHub. I need to take that into consideration. However, my inclination

is tending towards GitHub. I have dowloaded three applications from SourceForge and GitHub (all related to

music/free-reed instruments, including EasyABC). GitHUb seems to be slightly 'better' (subjective opinion!).

 

3) I wasn't aware of box.com. I will investigate. Thank you.

 

4) My own use of Dropbox (and to a lesser extent Google Drive) has mainly been as a contributor of a large(ish)

archive of documentary material relating to Japanese Chess. (Some of the material also appears on a 'private' web

site.) I seem to be a trusted provider, as the 'core' document has been downloaded many thousands of times. However,

I take the point about Dropbox 'reliability' and 'trustworthiness' - I have only ever downloaded two items from

Dropbox - both of them hosted by a member of this parish with an impeccable reputation. I would however be a little

apprehensive about downloading executables from an unknown/untrusted provider. 

 

5) Regarding 'garage' software. I don't know much about 'garage' software - first time I've seen the expression.
If I've understood the term correctly, I suspect it's unfortunately the case that very many of us are using what is
possibly the world's 'finest' and most widely distributed example of 'garage' software - it's called Windows...😎

 

6) My own preference is towards using carefully chosen open-source software. Proprietary software is sometimes
over-large, while the open-source equivalent is often much smaller. Where possible, I use the versions of 
open-source/free software available from the portableapps.com web site (pointed out to me about five years ago
by a member of this parish). Examples from portableapps: Open Office (document preparation), Sumatra (PDF viewer),
Notepad2 (editor), MuseScore, Chrome/Firefox, GIMP, Audacity, etc... 

 

My inclination at the moment is to use Dropbox as a temporary home for the prototype/manual/source code while I
get myself up to speed with GitHub, and then to transfer the whole thing to GitHub, and delete the Dropbox offering.

 

Thank you for your opinions folks, very helpful.

 

Last minute PS: JimR - what do you mean by ...If, of course, you are willing to accept changes to your program...?

Do GitHub 'change' your software or something? Ta.

_________________
FWIW, my own code (whatever the application) tends towards the KISS principle - straightforward, easy to use  ('drag-and-drop' where possible).

Programming style (for those who would go a'venturing and a'modifying) is simple (possibly naive), and usually constructed on the 'elephant-shit'

principle ('not nice to look at, but strong'). Downside for the tinkerers - I use a language no-one has ever heard of - Icon - possibly the worlds best 
general-purpose programming language, and the least well-known...
 

Edited October 4, 2020 by lachenal74693

[JimR]

It is my understanding that Github hosts open source projects. Open source implies contribution from others. Your project may not see any code contribution from others, and who knows perhaps Github allows for 'locking' a project to only one user account, I don't know, I'm only a retire scripter!

[Roger Hare]

15 minutes ago, JimR said:

It is my understanding that Github hosts open source projects. Open source implies contribution from others. Your project may not see any code contribution from others, and who knows perhaps Github allows for 'locking' a project to only one user account, I don't know, I'm only a retire scripter!

Understood. Thank you!

[alex_holden]

Other Github members can't modify your repository without your permission. What they can easily do is to 'fork' your project, i.e. make a copy of it that is under their control. They can then make changes to their fork, and at some point they may send you a 'pull request', i.e. they can ask you to incorporate some or all of their changes back into your repository. You don't have to accept a pull request if you don't like their changes. Their fork is publicly visible on the site and users may choose to download their version instead of yours; in fact sometimes the original author of a project loses interest, and a fork with a more active maintainer becomes the version that users prefer and recommend.

[Roger Hare]

17 minutes ago, alex_holden said:

Other Github members can't modify your repository without your permission. etc...

Ah! That's OK then. Ta!

[Steve Schulteis]

I'll cast another vote for GitHub. It's pretty much the standard for distributing open source software these days. I can't think of any competing service that I would be more confident in, either for trustworthiness or longevity.

[JimR]

21 hours ago, alex_holden said:

Other Github members can't modify your repository without your permission. What they can easily do is to 'fork' your project, i.e. make a copy of it that is under their control. They can then make changes to their fork, and at some point they may send you a 'pull request', i.e. they can ask you to incorporate some or all of their changes back into your repository. You don't have to accept a pull request if you don't like their changes. Their fork is publicly visible on the site and users may choose to download their version instead of yours; in fact sometimes the original author of a project loses interest, and a fork with a more active maintainer becomes the version that users prefer and recommend.

Thanks for the clarification, Alex!

[Roger Hare]

3 minutes ago, schult said:

I'll cast another vote for GitHub. It's pretty much the standard for distributing open source software these days.

I can't think of any competing service that I would be more confident in, either for trustworthiness or longevity.

Thanks. I've been mulling this over, and have already decided to start looking into the mechanics of setting up a 

GitHub 'account' (or whatever it's called). Later today possibly.

 

Ta!

[alex_holden]

It's possible to install Git, create a repository on your local computer, and use it to experiment and learn the basics of revision control before you upload a public repository to GitHub.

[RAc]

1 hour ago, alex_holden said:

It's possible to install Git, create a repository on your local computer, and use it to experiment and learn the basics of revision control before you upload a public repository to GitHub.

 

Yes. I very strongly advise newcomers to GIT to install a GUI shell for GIT, such as https://tortoisegit.org/ and do a good deal of "sandbox practising" as Ales suggests. To understand GIT requires going through a fairly steep learning curve. If you read up on GIT and end up (which you will typically do) in a Unix/Linux community, it's about the most discouraging thing to do (first thing they do is ask you to open up a command shell and hack a number of commands into it that may as well be sanskrit). GIT is extremly powerful and complex, and once one has understood its basic workings, it's actually a fairly good (and well tested!) tool. But to get there is work, even for somebody who has worked with computers all his life (and even for somebody who has worked with other version control software before). A GUI shell to me is a real life saver.

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by RAc

[Steve Schulteis]

13 hours ago, RAc said:

 

Yes. I very strongly advise newcomers to GIT to install a GUI shell for GIT, such as https://tortoisegit.org/ and do a good deal of "sandbox practising" as Ales suggests. To understand GIT requires going through a fairly steep learning curve. If you read up on GIT and end up (which you will typically do) in a Unix/Linux community, it's about the most discouraging thing to do (first thing they do is ask you to open up a command shell and hack a number of commands into it that may as well be sanskrit). GIT is extremly powerful and complex, and once one has understood its basic workings, it's actually a fairly good (and well tested!) tool. But to get there is work, even for somebody who has worked with computers all his life (and even for somebody who has worked with other version control software before). A GUI shell to me is a real life saver.

 

 

This is good advice. I recommend Git Kraken, which is free for open source projects. But I'm also one of those command prompt Unix/Linux guys RAc is warning you about, so your mileage may vary. 😉

[Roger Hare]

Folks, thank you for all your advice. I really do appreciate you all taking the time to respond to this query.

 

I spent an hour or so yesterday experimenting with GitHub. Sad to relate, when I tried to start looking at

the tutorial material in order to learn how to use the brute, the first things I encountered were broken links

and missing pages, followed by a short  'circular' path around a couple of pages which contained little but

self-congratulatory bullshit, and which simply returned me to the page I had started from. I wasn't able to

establish and follow a satisfactory path through the maze of pages.

 

Maybe I was unlucky, but I really don't need to fanny about with stuff like this - my other projects fill my time

more than adequately. I'm afraid that 'the GitHub project' is now on the back-burner and likely to stay there

for the medium-time future.

 

I stress once again that I really am grateful when folks take time to answer queries such as this one. Sometimes,

it just don't work...😞

Edited October 6, 2020 by lachenal74693

[RAc]

1 hour ago, lachenal74693 said:

Folks, thank you for all your advice. I really do appreciate you all taking the time to respond to this query.

 

I spent an hour or so yesterday experimenting with GitHub. Sad to relate, when I tried to start looking at

the tutorial material in order to learn how to use the brute, the first things I encountered were broken links

and missing pages, followed by a short  'circular' path around a couple of pages which contained little but

self-congratulatory bullshit, and which simply returned me to the page I had started from. I wasn't able to

establish and follow a satisfactory path through the maze of pages.

 

Maybe I was unlucky, but I really don't need to fanny about with stuff like this - my other projects fill my time

more than adequately. I'm afraid that 'the GitHub project' is now on the back-burner and likely to stay there

for the medium-time future.

 

I stress once again that I really am grateful when folks take time to answer queries such as this one. Sometimes,

it just don't work...😞

 

Yes, I'm afraid that was to be expected. I gave Unix/Linux several chances over the last 30 years I worked as a software developer, and that's been their metaphor ever since. It's a system made from hacker to hacker: If you're willing to dig full time into it, you're set. In any other case...

 

A reasonably good documentation/turorial for Tortoise starts here: https://tortoisegit.org/docs/tortoisegit/tgit-dug.html

 

We use it in a commerical business environment, and it does work very reliably and is stable.