51–60 of 140 posts
I began installing perpetually licensed software in VMs about 15 years ago. When I upgrade my (hypervisor) hardware, the VM still runs just fine. Obviously, a VM wouldn't be a suitable environment for FileZilla.
Why not? VMs can be given access to the host file systems.
wasn't every traditional license where you bought some software that you could use indefinitely a perpetual license? and how many places allowed you to redownload a paid software product multiple times? is filezilla here really out of place. is it not just following the norm? don't most applications work this way? especially the ones who don't implement some kind of license key check? i mean, without a license key sy…
>and how many places allowed you to redownload a paid software product multiple times? Better question is which places don't allow unlimited downloads. If you buy office 365, you can download it unlimited amount of times from microsoft. Hell, you can download it unlimited times even if you don't own it, because activation happens after it's installed. Same goes for something like Steam. The only exception is somethin…
I began installing perpetually licensed software in VMs about 15 years ago. When I upgrade my (hypervisor) hardware, the VM still runs just fine. Obviously, a VM wouldn't be a suitable environment for FileZilla.
While I understand the author's frustration, I think they should take a moment and look in the mirror. A perpetual license doesn't mean that Filezilla should be a free hosting provider for installation media for eternity. Their reasons really aren't that relevant here. Likewise the rant about Mozilla is completely unfounded. There are many things to be upset at in the modern software world, this is not one of them.
It is however, quite reasonable to expect that downloads will be available as long as the vendor is still in business, especially if the cost of hosting is marginal. Apple could theoretically sell you songs/albums on itunes, and tell you to rebuy if for whatever reason you lost your phone and didn't back up the file, but most people would think that's a dick move.
This is a blunt warning to anyone who ever purchased, or is thinking about purchasing, FileZilla Pro. I bought FileZilla Pro under a perpetual license - a one-time payment, lifetime right to use the version I purchased. After reinstalling my operating system, I simply needed to reinstall the software I already paid for. Here's what happened: - Support admitted I still have the legal right to use the old version of Fi…
If you bought something from a physical store and lose it doesn't entitle you to go get another one for free...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Good faith and common sense is being violated. That’s a valid point here.
Good faith ended at sale and support. Common sense isn’t at play because who is going to host installation media for eternity? No. There’s a nothing burger here.
While I understand the author's frustration, I think they should take a moment and look in the mirror. A perpetual license doesn't mean that Filezilla should be a free hosting provider for installation media for eternity. Their reasons really aren't that relevant here. Likewise the rant about Mozilla is completely unfounded. There are many things to be upset at in the modern software world, this is not one of them.
We're talking 50 megabytes of storage here, per version. They can save themselves a lot of hosting money by letting lifetime subscribers download the latest version, but that'll cut into their profit margins of course. Even if they don't want to host the setup on their website, providing a 50MiB installer file on request has to be the bare minimum customer support I'd expect.
My experience is that some people do confuse FileZilla with Mozilla. That said, everyone I know just uses the free version, despite the spyware that's bundled with the installer.
Based on this post, I wouldn't buy their professional subscription.