Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its truly amazing to me that installing windows software is still like this. You think this is bad, you should try the Windows 10 auto updater. Disclaimer: It's broken on my brand new PC and no helpful on-line fix has worked so far. So I might hold hate in my heart.
Similar experience here; Windows Update has been completely broken since shortly after I upgraded from Win7 to Win10. It tries to update -- it downloads several GB of patches, reboots and spends about 20 minutes installing -- then it tells me something along the lines of my system being "incompatible" with Windows (I forget the details, it's been a while) and rolls everything back. Every six months or so I let it try…
Filezilla installer is suspicious again
191–200 of 258 posts
Re: Filezilla installer is suspicious again
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because nobody really wants to give the AppStore 30% of their revenue. Having it be a percentage of the revenue instead of just a flat fee means its just a money-grab IMHO. Ironically Apple is arguing in court that Qualcomm is doing the same thing to them (charging a percentage based on retail pricing) and that the price is unfair.
You literally posted this elsewhere: > I'm not going to tell someone how they should make their living Be consistent. Don't tell apple how to make their living.
I didn't.
Re: Filezilla installer is suspicious again
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because nobody really wants to give the AppStore 30% of their revenue. Having it be a percentage of the revenue instead of just a flat fee means its just a money-grab IMHO. Ironically Apple is arguing in court that Qualcomm is doing the same thing to them (charging a percentage based on retail pricing) and that the price is unfair.
Very soon it won't be 30% anymore. https://blogs.windows.com/buildingapps/2018/05/07/a-new-micr...
Re: Filezilla installer is suspicious again
#194Botg site admin "The hash doesn't match because the filename doesn't match." A fully descriptive answer is that they don't have a checksum for the bundled package but botg doesn't want to say this. " Dangerously ignorant user. Not matching filename = the checksum is NOT for that file. Checksums can only be provided for the non-bundled packages, because they're static. Bundled installers are not." Dangerously ignorant…
> Its truly amazing to me that installing windows software is still like this It doesn't have to be that way, since there is a Windows/Microsoft Store since plenty of years now. But then you have gamers and game devs spreading FUD about UWP and the the MS Store, while they praise 3rd party platforms like Steam and GoG that actively refuse UWP apps in their store, while allowing Spyware like this. https://www.reddit.c…
All: Agenda-driven and single-purpose accounts aren't allowed on Hacker News because they're incompatible with the intellectual curiosity this site exists for. Double that when the agenda or single purpose is advancing corporate interests. It doesn't matter what corp it is, btw; the last time we banned an account for doing this it was a different one.
Re: Filezilla installer is suspicious again
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't support crapware but I'm not going to tell someone how they should make their living. That post looks like rabble rousing to me. I have yet to see any factual information except a whole lot of "it seems" "it appears" "I believe". I'd rather reserve judgement till the facts emerge.
If I see someone being immoral I'm going to tell them "how to make their living" not because I hope they are going to be so inspired as to change for the better because you and I both know that's not going to work. I do so because I hope other people will listen and stop doing business with them leading to a decrease in profit and THEN changed behaviour from the culprit. There is lots of factual information. They are…
>They are factually doing a lot of malware like behaviour in their installer and bundling software from questionable sources they have no control over.
Their explanation was that AV vendors flag their competitors, so now in the 'arms race', competitors have resorted to downloading individual bits from random URLs and then merging them together. While this would be a technique that malware software would use to possibly defeat security software, but hey, its also how torrents work. Tools can be used for good or bad.
Re: Filezilla installer is suspicious again
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
What factual information do you dispute from their responses?
I dispute "The hash doesn't match because the filename doesn't match." He did backpedal and say he really meant they don't match because the files are different. (Well, duh.) I also dispute "It's a tautological false-positive, by the very definition of the term, _everything_ is potentially unwanted." That's not the definition. Here is a definition in line with what just about everyone means by the term: "A potentiall…
Re: Filezilla installer is suspicious again
#197This has always been the case. Filezilla offers two versions for Windows and macOS on their website: Bundled and non-bunbled. You get the bundled version when you click "Download FileZilla Client" and then the big green "Download FileZilla Client" button (assuming you're visiting the website from a Windows or macOS client): "This installer may include bundled offers." makes this also very clear. In order to get the c…
It's funny, I've been using the Internet long enough that I almost instinctively ignore such buttons and look for the actual link. The bigger and more lurid they are, the more easily I ignore them --- just like automatically scrolling past banner ads and such, I suppose it comes with experience.
Of course sometimes the "too obvious" button is the right one, but that's been a minority.
Re: Filezilla installer is suspicious again
#198- shut down that thread at the first opportunity (it's their own forum so they are able to do that)
- as a corollary to the above, always run your own forums for questions, support, fandom, etc. so you can kill threads, guide the conversation, ban users, or redesign the site giving cover for losing history that you don't want remembered
- ban that particular user who was giving the best analysis; a real reason is not necessary -- just allege that he violated the terms & conditions
- have someone preview all questions and comments before they get posted in your forum; you know how some sites say, "Your comment is awaiting moderation"? -- you need to do that
- never give official answers to any questions (the founder and original developer was replying in his own name); instead, always reply as a fellow user, knowledgeable and helpful, but allowing the company a way to disown any replies given out
- don't even bother to reply to questions you don't want to answer; just ignore them (the current thread would surely have died out if the founder had not given those silly obfuscating answers); you can compose a crafty reply only if it becomes a big problem
- have a bunch of fake users (employees, PR department, outsourced agents) ready to pounce on, rebut, or ridicule the user providing the good analysis; similarly, have those fake users guide the discussion or completely change the topic
Some large software companies get away with far worse tricks and shenanigans, affecting millions of users, by following the principles above.
Re: Filezilla installer is suspicious again
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
What factual information do you dispute from their responses?
A) The hash/filename comments, that's ridiculous and obviously meant to mislead (yes, the BOTG person tries to walk it back, but it was still bullshit) 2) The lack of actual rebuttal — a tonne of valid points were made about the bundled binary, the dats, the phoning home, the unsigned executables, etc. None of them were addressed. 3) the nonsense about digital signatures Do you really truly think they did an adequate…
>The lack of actual rebuttal — a tonne of valid points were made about the bundled binary, the dats, the phoning home, the unsigned executables, etc. None of them were addressed.
https://forum.filezilla-project.org/viewtopic.php?p=161493#p...
Maybe the dude didn't go into excruciating detail but I understood the reply. Which part of the reply was factually incorrect?
>3) the nonsense about digital signatures
Could you link to the comment ?
>Do you really truly think they did an adequate job responding to the complaints/criticisms/questions? Seriously?
I don't know which complaints you're referring to. Some are reasonable, and others are just wild accusations. But just to give you an answer that you will be happy with, No, they didn't.