5 ms·

I'm sure most HN readers have a folder somewhere full of installers and executables for years-old software that remains unmatched by anything modern. I've never

I'm sure most HN readers have a folder somewhere full of installers and executables for years-old software that remains unmatched by anything modern. I've never seen a CD ripper better than CDex, or a site archiver better than HTTRACK, or an Android file manager better than ES File Explorer Pro. It's interesting to note that the companies behind half of my favorite programs were bought out and began distributing malware before shutting down.

renewiltord 6y ago
Interestingly, as a predominantly Linux user, I have no such folder. Notably, while the utility software has consistently improved, the UX software has definitely had ups and downs. And I can't substitute my GUI shell that easily so I keep the default and suck it up.
- taeric 6y ago
  You say that, and yet you probably do still use perl/shell/other obscure tool that is rather old. In particularly, at the foundation layer. BLAS and friends would be a good candidate for old software.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Right, right, but it's fresh (compiles with today compiler, links to glibc etc.) not some archaeological artifact I'm boarding.
    - taeric 6y ago
      Fair... I am not sure that changes the idea, though. TeX, as an example, stands as a jewel. Even if it has things we could and probably do criticize today, it has proven ridiculous value.
      - renewiltord 6y ago
        Right, right. Not arguing with article premise, just mentioning that a useful effect of useful open source software is that this stuff generally remains true. And I'm not a zealot or anything. I just like this aspect.
PTOB 6y ago
Used to be that there were lots of repositories of this very sort of thing. Seems they've dried up in the face of the Google algorithm. Any leads?
hackerfromthefu 6y ago
I would avoid ES File Explorer Pro - requests permissions it shouldn't, has dubious ownership, and see e.g. this https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/es-file-explorer-flaws-put-100-million-users-data-at-risk-fix-promised/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/es-file-explo...
- Causality1 6y ago
  Yeah, you should only run a version from before they got bought out. It'd be nice to have a replacement but as far as I can tell nothing comes remotely close to being as good. Tabbed browsing with source-agnostic windows (local storage, USB drive, network shared folder all treated the same) editable clipboard, editable app associations, nothing else comes close.

renewiltord 6y ago

Interestingly, as a predominantly Linux user, I have no such folder. Notably, while the utility software has consistently improved, the UX software has definitely had ups and downs. And I can't substitute my GUI shell that easily so I keep the default and suck it up.

taeric 6y ago
You say that, and yet you probably do still use perl/shell/other obscure tool that is rather old. In particularly, at the foundation layer. BLAS and friends would be a good candidate for old software.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Right, right, but it's fresh (compiles with today compiler, links to glibc etc.) not some archaeological artifact I'm boarding.
  - taeric 6y ago
    Fair... I am not sure that changes the idea, though. TeX, as an example, stands as a jewel. Even if it has things we could and probably do criticize today, it has proven ridiculous value.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Right, right. Not arguing with article premise, just mentioning that a useful effect of useful open source software is that this stuff generally remains true. And I'm not a zealot or anything. I just like this aspect.

PTOB 6y ago

Used to be that there were lots of repositories of this very sort of thing. Seems they've dried up in the face of the Google algorithm. Any leads?

hackerfromthefu 6y ago

I would avoid ES File Explorer Pro - requests permissions it shouldn't, has dubious ownership, and see e.g. this https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/es-file-explorer-flaws-put-100-million-users-data-at-risk-fix-promised/ https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/es-file-explo...

Causality1 6y ago
Yeah, you should only run a version from before they got bought out. It'd be nice to have a replacement but as far as I can tell nothing comes remotely close to being as good. Tabbed browsing with source-agnostic windows (local storage, USB drive, network shared folder all treated the same) editable clipboard, editable app associations, nothing else comes close.