3 ms·
Sophisticated users will know to download the unbundled installer, and maybe even go so far as to verify the hash. But that sideskirts the question of whether
by zaroth 8y ago
Sophisticated users will know to download the unbundled installer, and maybe even go so far as to verify the hash.
But that sideskirts the question of whether to continue using software where the authors are willing to put their users at risk by monetizing with what is apparently malware bundles.
FileZilla is by all accounts a fantastic piece of software. I’ve used it for years, both the client and the server, and it’s no doubt provided significant value to me over the years.
And yet I’ve never paid the FileZilla authors a penny for their services.
So while I didn’t force the FileZilla authors down this dark path that they’ve chosen to use for monetization, I accept that I am part of the problem.
- codedokode 8y agoI don't really see the problem. If the developers want to get paid for they work they can just sell their software. The problem is when someone tries to monetize their product by deceiving users. This is the case: they prevent user from knowing what is happening on their computer, download and run suspicious binaries and use EULA as an excuse. And I suspect, they themselves don't even know for sure what is bundled into the installer. User should know exactly what they are offered. Hiding a clause like "you allow us to do anything we want" in EULA should not work.
- jensv 8y agoImagine if Google charged $5 per month for a subscription to their search engine. We're kind of seeing this with Youtube Red.......