>HN readers are capable of not using FileZilla, because its admin is actively trying to mislead its users into running malware.
Then your prior comment makes no sense to me.
>Of course there is trustworthy freeware. You can get it using Apt, Yum, Ninite, Chocolatey, Homebrew, or just by going to the actual site of a trustworthy software product.
If you don't use the crapware downloader, then the vendor doesn't get any money. I noted that pretty much all freeware is bundled like so, including your "trustworthy" software, on various other download sites.
Then the only way the vendor can stay in business is if enough people download the crapware version.
>Are you associated with FileZilla?
Huh? Why are you asking, and why would it matter?
>Why are you here bringing out the "everyone is doing it" defense?
What doesn't make sense? FileZilla is a bad actor who is trying to infect people's computers with malware. Download sites are bad actors who are trying to infect people's computers with malware.
People should have all the information they need to avoid malware, so they can make good decisions, such as installing WinSCP from Ninite instead of installing FileZilla by any method.
You keep denying that trustworthy free software exists, and yet when anyone points out that it does, you change the topic to something fraud-ridden like download sites. People who cheat on tests believe everyone is cheating on tests.
I do not care one bit for your business model. Please go out of business ASAP.
It would have been a bad idea to use WinSCP in 2014 also. Yet you'll notice they backed off and have had years to repair their reputation, instead of getting caught a second time and trying to cover it up like FileZilla is doing.
I understand how your kind of free software makes money perfectly well. It's not trustworthy in the slightest.
You don't need to make money to make a program that copies files. And if you bundle your free software with a scam, you're not making money as a software developer anyway, you're making money as a scammer.
You've crossed into incivility in this thread. That's not allowed on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else (or everyone else) may be. If you could please (re-)read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and not do it again, we'd appreciate that.
The likeliest explanation for that is always the simplest one: we didn't see it. Obviously, though, breaking the rules isn't justified by other people breaking the rules. It always feels like the other person started it, so one could use that to justify anything.
Re your comments, personal swipes like "you seem very confused", "you are unable to understand", "rather than wild accusations and hysteria, I'd recommend calm collected analytical thinking" are certainly uncivil and violate the site guidelines. We ban accounts that make a habit of this, so please (re-)read the rules and use the site as intended from now on: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I don't expect you to look at 100% of the comments, but its a bit like citing someone for jaywalking but letting the murder escape. Sure cite the jaywalker, but after you've found the murder.
>Re your comments, personal swipes like "you seem very confused", "you are unable to understand", "rather than wild accusations and hysteria, I'd recommend calm collected analytical thinking" are certainly uncivil and violate the site guidelines.
There are several flaws in your interpretation, but I don't wish to convince you otherwise.
