41–50 of 258 posts
Any impact on the Linux versions of filezilla?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vendors who have partaken in the "bundled crapware" model of distribution - Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, etc, etc. >They have decided that tricking people into downloading malware is a reasonable alternative to charging money for their software or soliciting donations. If you would be so kind enough as to show them how to make money perhaps they'll stop doing it. >Its truly amazing to me that inst…
I would rather they go out of business if they can't figure out another way to make money. You CAN install binaries on other platforms but on for example linux distros their is a curated platform of packages where you can get most/all software. The fact that this is the default way to install software and regular users don't need to look beyond the official repos is why installing software on linux isn't this kind of…
Only for some other unscrupulous company to replace them? Ideally, the most profitable method should be ethical by nature, unlike the current situation in software (and games, of course) where the most profitable methods are among the least ethical.
Any impact on the Linux versions of filezilla?
I don't see why, being on Linux, you would prefer to use FileZilla to transfer files to a remote machine over an insecure protocol when there are plenty of alternatives with better security. Rsync, for example, allows you to specify an SSH key. Or SCP, which also offers the same functionality.
If I had a choice I would, but unless you have a few million dollars to give us to refactor 30 years of technical debt, please answer the question.
Well, damn. I didn't even know there were prior incidents. Ugh. I've used Filezilla within the last year. What are good alternatives?
Any impact on the Linux versions of filezilla?
I don't see why, being on Linux, you would prefer to use FileZilla to transfer files to a remote machine over an insecure protocol when there are plenty of alternatives with better security. Rsync, for example, allows you to specify an SSH key. Or SCP, which also offers the same functionality.
Suspicious? Let’s call this what it really is: The FileZilla owners are actively encouraging users to install malware as a way to monetize. That is very clear. Avoid FileZilla by all means.
Any impact on the Linux versions of filezilla?
I don't see why, being on Linux, you would prefer to use FileZilla to transfer files to a remote machine over an insecure protocol when there are plenty of alternatives with better security. Rsync, for example, allows you to specify an SSH key. Or SCP, which also offers the same functionality.
Any impact on the Linux versions of filezilla?
I don't see why, being on Linux, you would prefer to use FileZilla to transfer files to a remote machine over an insecure protocol when there are plenty of alternatives with better security. Rsync, for example, allows you to specify an SSH key. Or SCP, which also offers the same functionality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vendors who have partaken in the "bundled crapware" model of distribution - Google, Amazon, Yahoo, Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, etc, etc. >They have decided that tricking people into downloading malware is a reasonable alternative to charging money for their software or soliciting donations. If you would be so kind enough as to show them how to make money perhaps they'll stop doing it. >Its truly amazing to me that inst…
I would rather they go out of business if they can't figure out another way to make money. You CAN install binaries on other platforms but on for example linux distros their is a curated platform of packages where you can get most/all software. The fact that this is the default way to install software and regular users don't need to look beyond the official repos is why installing software on linux isn't this kind of…
>You CAN install binaries on other platforms but on for example linux distros their is a curated platform of packages where you can get most/all software.
Sure, but things often work better when you pay people upfront rather than get something for free and let them fend for themselves. In the case of Linux packaging, there is no mechanism for monetization or advertising, so the point doesn't come up.
>The fact that this is the default way to install software and regular users don't need to look beyond the official repos is why installing software on linux isn't this kind of shit show.
I'd use Linux if it had the software that I want to use. So a bit of apples-oranges here...