3 ms·

There are certainly different understandings of the term 'malware', even within the technical community, let alone the wider world. The fact that a large number

There are certainly different understandings of the term 'malware', even within the technical community, let alone the wider world. The fact that a large number of people use it to describe "software that ended up on my computer that I wasn't expecting", no matter what it's doing, means that companies need to be very careful how they go about using this practice. Even if you have the very best possible intentions in the world, you're probably going to damage your reputation by bundling unrelated software, so why not just offer it as a separate download in the first place?

dimino 11y ago
I get where you're coming from, and ultimately I agree that Sourceforge screwed up by doing this whole "bundling" thing, and probably because they're scrambling desperately to make money in a GitHub world. There is, however, a meaningful difference between the kinds of things my antivirus picks up and the software Sourceforge was bundling. Calling the Sourceforge bundles "malware" masks that difference, and I think that's harmful, and maybe a little childish.
- JoshTriplett 11y ago
  I've seen multiple reports of people's antivirus software blocking downloads of the "installers" provided by SourceForge, or warning about the resulting downloaded executable. And rightfully so. Scrambling to stay in business, or being under new management, is not an excuse to suddenly become user-hostile or otherwise turn to shady activities. Similarly, many companies start throwing around litigation when they begin to fail, since that's the only way the purchasers of the various patents/etc owned by the company into money. Finally, the only "harm" it could do to classify all such software as "malware" is to make it more difficult for vendors of software who would prefer not to be classified in the same bucket as people who maliciously break into computer systems. And I have zero sympathy for any such companies; the sooner they go out of business, and the more they're viewed as universally unacceptable, the better off both users and the computing industry will be.

dimino 11y ago

I get where you're coming from, and ultimately I agree that Sourceforge screwed up by doing this whole "bundling" thing, and probably because they're scrambling desperately to make money in a GitHub world. There is, however, a meaningful difference between the kinds of things my antivirus picks up and the software Sourceforge was bundling. Calling the Sourceforge bundles "malware" masks that difference, and I think that's harmful, and maybe a little childish.

JoshTriplett 11y ago
I've seen multiple reports of people's antivirus software blocking downloads of the "installers" provided by SourceForge, or warning about the resulting downloaded executable. And rightfully so. Scrambling to stay in business, or being under new management, is not an excuse to suddenly become user-hostile or otherwise turn to shady activities. Similarly, many companies start throwing around litigation when they begin to fail, since that's the only way the purchasers of the various patents/etc owned by the company into money. Finally, the only "harm" it could do to classify all such software as "malware" is to make it more difficult for vendors of software who would prefer not to be classified in the same bucket as people who maliciously break into computer systems. And I have zero sympathy for any such companies; the sooner they go out of business, and the more they're viewed as universally unacceptable, the better off both users and the computing industry will be.