4 ms·

At no point did I say it didn't have malware, in fact, I explicitly acknowledged it. I have no interest in reading the comments of that person -- regardless, th

by fao_ 5y ago

At no point did I say it didn't have malware, in fact, I explicitly acknowledged it. I have no interest in reading the comments of that person -- regardless, they already butt-in unrequited to a twitter thread I was in to do some weird PR bullshit.

badsectoracula 5y ago
You wrote "Citation needed" on a topic about malware and even your "acknowledgment" wasn't even that clear as you wrote "It might not have outright malware" - something is either malware or isn't. So i gave you an answer from the person who is in the best position to answer it. > they already butt-in unrequited to a twitter thread I was in to do some weird PR bullshit How is that relevant to this discussion? Nobody even mentioned twitter. As for the UX, yes it isn't great, nobody claimed it was. But they did make an attempt to improve it, here is how it looked when they bought it (some random project page): http://web.archive.org/web/20161108001911/https://sourceforge.net/projects/doublecmd/?source=frontpage&position=7 http://web.archive.org/web/20161108001911/https://sourceforg... (now if the new one is an improvement or not i'm not sure, i think the new one has more user-oriented information "above the fold" despite being larger in size but overall the difference isn't that big)
- fao_ 5y ago
  > You wrote "Citation needed" on a topic about malware Asking for a citation isn't itself denial > How is that relevant to this discussion? Nobody even mentioned twitter. The CEO of sourceforge is so desperate to say it doesn't contain malware that they butt into twitter threads to do unrequited PR. > But they did make an attempt to improve it, here is how it looked when they bought it (some random project page): Which is objectively more usable from a UX standpoint than it's current interface.

4 ms·

At no point did I say it didn't have malware, in fact, I explicitly acknowledged it. I have no interest in reading the comments of that person -- regardless, th

by fao_ 5y ago

badsectoracula 5y ago
You wrote "Citation needed" on a topic about malware and even your "acknowledgment" wasn't even that clear as you wrote "It might not have outright malware" - something is either malware or isn't. So i gave you an answer from the person who is in the best position to answer it. > they already butt-in unrequited to a twitter thread I was in to do some weird PR bullshit How is that relevant to this discussion? Nobody even mentioned twitter. As for the UX, yes it isn't great, nobody claimed it was. But they did make an attempt to improve it, here is how it looked when they bought it (some random project page): http://web.archive.org/web/20161108001911/https://sourceforge.net/projects/doublecmd/?source=frontpage&position=7 http://web.archive.org/web/20161108001911/https://sourceforg... (now if the new one is an improvement or not i'm not sure, i think the new one has more user-oriented information "above the fold" despite being larger in size but overall the difference isn't that big)
- fao_ 5y ago
  > You wrote "Citation needed" on a topic about malware Asking for a citation isn't itself denial > How is that relevant to this discussion? Nobody even mentioned twitter. The CEO of sourceforge is so desperate to say it doesn't contain malware that they butt into twitter threads to do unrequited PR. > But they did make an attempt to improve it, here is how it looked when they bought it (some random project page): Which is objectively more usable from a UX standpoint than it's current interface.