IS FILEZILLA SAFE FOR MAC SOFTWARE
IS FILEZILLA SAFE FOR MAC CODE
IS FILEZILLA SAFE FOR MAC DOWNLOAD

But you will likely miss the excellent download statistics, anonymous support forum and user review system. The real killer is lack of integration of third-party tools like CircleCI.

IS FILEZILLA SAFE FOR MAC SOFTWARE

Sourceforge is actually a reasonable tool to develop open-source software in 2021.įor new projects I would generally suggest sticking with Github and GitLab, but for existing projects on Sourceforge changing hosting to Github may not be required. It's too easy for newbie users to download older releases (Github has the same issue unless you create a Github Pages site to highlight the most recent release). Many third-party tools (like CircleCI) tend to target only Github (and to a lesser degree GitLab/Bitbucket) and ignore Sourceforge entirely.

IS FILEZILLA SAFE FOR MAC CODE

Many Sourceforge projects tend to have their source code mirrored on a rarely updated Github project, which then gets forked and developed without changes being upstreamed, which causes fragmentation. As a developer familiar with both tools (and git, PRs etc) I find Github easier to use than Sourceforge, which is saying something. New Github users are understandably initially confused by the concept of Pull Requests (which should have been called Merge Requests) and the fork user-interface. Though admittedly Github has its share of UI quirks. I find Github's well designed settings page much easier. Sourceforge's entire website seems to go into maintenance mode for a few minutes every 24 hours, which is frustrating for those in less favorable timezones.Įven after using it for a long time, Sourceforge user-interface and settings/permissions is overly complex, confusing and non-intuitive. Because of this, I recommend AlternativeTo ( ), as they have better review non-interference policy. This single change has completely ruined the trustworthiness of Sourceforge's reviews, as unscrupulous application authors are able to mark all poor reviews as spam so users only see good reviews. Sourceforge recently added the ability for the project administrator to mark any review as spam, which automatically hides it. This is actually a really ridiculous situation. Sourceforge download statistics tracking of releases (including graphing per country and with arbitrary timestamps) is far superior to Github, which doesn't offer even private tracking of download numbers without directly using their API. The forum can be configured for users to be able to post without creating an account (though only as a specific user named 'Anonymous', not arbitrary names) which is as important feature when creating software for users who aren't likely to have Github or Sourceforge accounts. Here is a review that might help some people.įor general project discussion, Sourceforge's traditional discussion forum is far superior to Github/GitLab issues (though I haven't tried Github Discussions beta yet). The new Sourceforge team has generally done a great job. You'd never actually make that stick in court. But like I said that's just fantasy academic theory. You'd never actually win in court, but in plain conversational argument, if say the crapware caused some damage, the vendor could't claim that the user voluntarily accepted the risk of damage by voluntarily installing the software. It also invalidates any arguments based on 'the user accepted' something. It's that it exposes the true intent in a way that can't be denied. The norm is already bad, and this is just a little more of the same.

But that just doesn't quite add up to proof of anything.īut offering one extra, and then only trying again with another if the user declined the first, THAT exposes that the only intent of the extra was to get the user to take it any way they can manage to do it, and not a sincere 'offer' of something the user might have actually voluntarily sought otherwise. You could try by pointing out things like how the outer packaging only said that the contents would be Product not Product+OtherProduct, and how the checkbox for the non-advertized and un-expected extra was pre-selected and visually tiny.

We 'just know' that's bs, but it's possible and it's hard to disprove purely on the face of it. If an installer always proposes an extra, or 2, or 13, then the vendor can claim 'I'm just offering this extra that I honestly and sincerely believe the user might be interested in and might benefit from'. The special difference is just that it exposes the intent which was theoretically deniable otherwise, even if everyone 'just knows' what's really going on. That dynamic reactive 2nd attempt to trick you, which is only invoked if you caught and declined the first, is materially different from the first attempt, and different from if the installer always presented both extras. I think it would be a very weak case and practically impossible to make that argument.

It might possibly qualify as an attempt to deceive. I didn't say it was illegal, just dickish.įraud.

Is filezilla safe for mac