[HN Gopher] FileZilla now contains adware if you download from t...
___________________________________________________________________
FileZilla now contains adware if you download from the official
homepage
Author : URfejk
Score : 444 points
Date : 2021-03-27 11:29 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.twitter.com)
| superkuh wrote:
| Wow. I recall when this first happened because of SourceForge
| being sold to shady people who decided to put ad/malware loaders
| around the installers of all the exes hosted there (like
| FileZilla). But that was the early/mid-2000s. It's hard to
| believe it is being allowed to happen again in modern times.
| robinj6 wrote:
| SourceForge is to software as maggots are to meat. Don't know
| how the people behind it have an ounce of self respect.
| wincy wrote:
| I'd imagine that it's easy to drown out the sound of your
| conscience when you're driving a brand new Model X and live
| in a big house.
| kergonath wrote:
| AFAIK the new SourceForge, after they've been bought, is much
| better. Also, much less relevant now that everything is on
| GitHub.
| dehrmann wrote:
| SourceForge was a huge blunder. They were so close to being
| Github, but they opted to to squeeze out every last dollar,
| instead. ExpertsExchanges and AIM are similar--products that
| could have been medium-large opportunities today, but
| business and product choices that left an opening for a
| competitor.
|
| That said, I'm not convinced SourceForce could have actually
| been Github because it didn't have the culture, the brand was
| mispositioned, and it's hard to to be Github without lots of
| VC.
| MrGilbert wrote:
| Ah yes, Expert-Exchange - the site where you could simply
| google your way around their paywall. Never took this page
| too serious, tbh.
| superted wrote:
| Any idea what kind of revenue this potentially brings in,
| assuming this is the rationale begins this decision? In contrast
| to tarnishing the Filezilla name (albeit this could mostly be
| controversial in the hn crowd)
| david_allison wrote:
| Around $0.01 per active user per year from open source
| donations. Many factors: depends on the type of open source
| (infra vs user-facing) and the technical ability and geographic
| location of your users.
|
| PPI malware seems to go for around $0.40/install [0]
|
| [0] https://medium.com/csis-techblog/installcapital-when-
| adware-...
| neogodless wrote:
| Can someone explain this to me in layman's terms? The link from a
| Twitter reply[0] shows about 14 malware items contained in the
| installer. Do these get invisibly installed onto your computer?
| Is there some way to detect them after the fact and remove them?
|
| Since I was worried, I checked my most recent FileZilla FTP
| Client installation file, and it seems clear[1].
|
| [0]
| https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/ec4c01ab48df9095b602323c...
|
| [1]
| https://www.virustotal.com/gui/file/4c9e0e07eaafabfe7be191d1...
| zenexer wrote:
| As others have pointed out, FileZilla has been caught doing
| shady stuff for a while now. Antivirus doesn't pick up on
| everything; furthermore, just because it's clean today doesn't
| mean it will be tomorrow, and FileZilla's actions have
| demonstrated that they're not above shipping malware. There are
| better, free tools out there that don't have this issue.
| FileZilla fell behind the competition well over a decade ago;
| you should look into finding a new tool that meets your needs.
| WinSCP is a popular option.
| neogodless wrote:
| Yes - this doesn't really answer my question. Another comment
| mentions the dark patterns trying to get you to install
| things you don't want in the process. That kind of thing is
| annoying but manageable. Quietly installing malware is a
| whole different animal, so I'm trying to get an explanation
| of if that's what's happening with the bad installation file
| above.
|
| (And yes given this thread, I've already downloaded WinSCP to
| use going forward, though I haven't installed it / used it
| yet.)
| caycep wrote:
| A few thoughts:
|
| -I've noticed the overall experience of downloading and
| installing on a lot of "classic" windows apps making installing a
| little dicier- ads are served on the download page, and look like
| official install links, and installers themselves have issues
| like the above.
|
| -App store is one way I supposed - it's a way to
| cryptographically sign things but with an element of control
| delegated to the central computer vendor; which is unpalatable to
| a lot of the open source/free computing crowd
|
| -The one thought that came to me - is blockchain tech - i.e.
| Blockchain Chicken Farm, NFTs, etc a parallel development to
| address this sort of thing? The parallel seems to mirror Jennifer
| 8. Lee's book on the rise of General Tso's Chicken (open source)
| vs. McDonald's Chicken McNuggets (corporate), vs. the old ESR
| essay re "The Cathedral vs. the Bazaar" model of Microsoft vs.
| Linux development?
| S_A_P wrote:
| Towards the end of the shareware era this became more and more
| common. I have to wonder how much money this must be bringing in
| for the Filezilla project for them to just be so blase about it.
| I
| code_duck wrote:
| While the phrasing implies this is new, here's an discussion
| about the issue from 2018.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17381184
|
| An article from 2018...
|
| https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/filezillas-us...
|
| A question about it on their forum from over 4 years ago
|
| https://forum.filezilla-project.org/viewtopic.php?t=42791
| lioeters wrote:
| From the last link, the exchange went like this..
|
| User: Just downloaded filezilla from the "official site". This
| one and was infected by adware which trashed my browser. WTF. I
| have trusted filezilla for years this is MOST Disappointing.
|
| Admin: The offer-enabled installer may display third-party
| offers during installation. Nothing is installed without your
| prior consent. In case you have accidentally agreed to an
| offer, you can completely uninstall it from Windows' Add/Remove
| Programs dialog. If you do not wish to use the offer enabled
| installer, have a look at the additional download options page.
| EMM_386 wrote:
| > The offer-enabled installer may display third-party offers
| during installation. Nothing is installed without your prior
| consent. In case you have accidentally agreed to an offer,
| you can completely uninstall it from Windows' Add/Remove
| Programs dialog.
|
| Except in looking into it further, there was a particular
| sketchy offer that was being sent called "Search Bundle" that
| was completely opaque, put what is essentially an APT on the
| machine, and was not listed in Add/Remove programs.
|
| The other applications (Firefox, Opera, etc) seemed to allow
| for normal uninstallation, but not that one.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| It's even a bit worse than that.
|
| You already probably imagine that the installer has default-
| selected checkbox that will install something extra if you
| don't catch it and deselect it.
|
| But what surprised me was, it actively reacts and tries again
| if you do catch it.
|
| If you don't stop it, it installs something extra.
| Straightforward.
|
| But if you DO stop it, it then tries to install a 2nd,
| different extra unwanted crap. There are 2 things in the
| installer from the get-go, but it only hits you with the 2nd
| one if you managed to catch and decline the 1st one.
|
| That's a whole special extra level of actively attempting to
| trick and decieve. That is crossing a line from at least
| plausible deniability that it's just a passive annoyance,
| into activly adversarial behavior against your own users.
| Animats wrote:
| Someone please file criminal charges under the Computer
| Fraud and Abuse Act for that. That clearly 'exceeds
| authorized access'.
| fortran77 wrote:
| Why not you? You seem to know about "filing criminal
| charges" and the specific law he violated.
|
| I had believed that only a government prosecutor in the
| United States could "file criminal charges." Do you know
| how this works?
| Animats wrote:
| I'm not an injured party.
|
| You start here: [1]
|
| [1] https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ccips/reporting-
| computer-in...
| icebraining wrote:
| You can just download Filezilla to become an injured
| party.
| topkeks wrote:
| Not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's illegal in EU.
| appleflaxen wrote:
| It's like a Mitch Hedberg punchline:
| FileZilla now contains adware... it always
| did, but it does now, too.
| cronix wrote:
| RIP Mitch. One hell of a funny guy.
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| For clarification, FileZilla itself does not appear contain
| adware nor has it switched to ads within the app from my
| analysis. The main download page for Windows installers contains
| a bundleware offer within the installer as you install (this
| offer may currently be offline). The installer filename contains
| the string _sponsored_. If you click through to the show
| additional download options, you can get all the installers
| without bundleware for all OSes.
| Nexxxeh wrote:
| Also, no malware when installed by Ninite, which I imagine is
| how many of us get it on our systems.
| anotheryou wrote:
| Cyberduck is similar and nice. Don't use it much though, can't
| promise it's ad free.
| varispeed wrote:
| Interestingly the applications are free to collect any personal
| data as they are not included in GDPR. When I requested from one
| company to let me export my data from the application in a human
| readable format or to at least send documentation of their file
| format, so that I can port my data to another application, they
| refused saying that GDPR only applies to online apps. It's
| possible that companies will be moving their online apps to
| electron or native phone apps to bypass GDPR.
| dasil003 wrote:
| IANAL but I have worked on GDPR compliance and I'm not sure how
| that will fly if they are phoning home. Of course the EU
| regulators probably won't have bandwidth to chase these minnows
| but worth reporting in any case.
| w3ll_w3ll_w3ll wrote:
| I think in OP case the app is not phoning home. The data are
| still in his pc, but he would like to export it in another
| format. I don't think GDPR applies here, but I am not an
| expert.
| dasil003 wrote:
| It's a little tricky to infer the specifics, but adware
| that collects personal data would be non-sensical if it
| doesn't phone home. In fact the whole idea of "collecting
| data" implies it is being sent to storage under control of
| the collecting entity. I think this is pretty clear cut
| under GDPR and there's no bypassing it based on the
| technicality of web app vs native app--I believe regulators
| learned their lesson about tight coupling to specific
| technical implementions with the earlier cookie laws.
|
| On the other hand, you could be write that OP is just
| talking about data portability in which case there is "data
| collection", just lack of an export feature.
| dehrmann wrote:
| If they don't have an EU office, I assume they can ignore
| GDPR because the EU has no jurisdiction.
| ToFab123 wrote:
| It has been like that for a long time. Many years I believe.
| There is an option to download clean versions on their website.
| "Download > Show Additional download options" is the page you are
| after.
|
| https://filezilla-project.org/download.php?show_all=1
|
| If you check the filename of the windows installer you download
| from the frontpage the name is FileZilla_Version_Sponsored-
| setup.exe
|
| The installer available from the link above does not contain the
| word "Sponsored" and the installer is 2.5 MB smaller.
|
| Additional. Windows Defender tries it best to prevent you from
| installing the version found on the frontpage due to the adware.
| It has no issues with the other installer.
| userbinator wrote:
| _Windows Defender tries it best to prevent you from installing
| the version found on the frontpage due to the adware._
|
| ...as if Windows (10) itself didn 't contain any. More than
| 2.5MB of it, no doubt! How ironic to see the pot calling the
| kettle black.
|
| Edit: if you don't believe me, search around here and elsewhere
| for "Windows 10 adware". I'm surprised that this is even a
| controversial comment.
| [deleted]
| buffet_overflow wrote:
| We've had to ban the application entirely from our work
| machines. At least when we went through review, even the
| "clean" versions packaged things that tripped our antivirus
| software, and at that point, we as an organization decided to
| stop trusting the author entirely.
|
| There's quite a lot of forum posts where the author defends
| this practice, so we don't see this reversing any time soon.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| We packaged it ourselves and made it available as an SCCM
| bundle, since users don't have admin rights on their systems
| anyway.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| I'm surprised nobody made a forked commercial version yet.
|
| Remove the adware, replace the logo, sell commercial
| licenses.
| m-p-3 wrote:
| There's FileZilla Pro.
|
| https://filezillapro.com/
| randerson wrote:
| As someone who is happy to pay for good software, I can't
| ever see myself buying a paid version of something (no
| matter how good it might be) if the author has a history
| of using dark patterns and showing their apparent
| contempt for their users with the "free" edition. I'd be
| constantly wondering what other traps might be lurking in
| there.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Right. The fact that you can get around something, or
| that someone failed to do something to you is not the
| important thing. What matters far more is the fact that
| they tried and wanted to.
| grawprog wrote:
| >If you check the filename of the windows installer you
| download from the frontpage the name is
| FileZilla_Version_Sponsored-setup.exe
|
| Damn...that reminds me of the old days of sneaky checkboxes
| hidden in installers, usually actually hidden, that would be
| pre-checked confirming your consent to whatever ad/spyware to
| be installed alongside whatever you wanted to install.
|
| I remember that shit being everywhere for a few years. Got
| tricked by them once or twice and had a hell of a time cleaning
| things up after.
| jasonwatkinspdx wrote:
| Yeah, the one I remember was RealPlayer, which during the
| install wizard had a list of check boxes. The ones initially
| visible were unchecked, but if you scrolled you'd find the
| spam consent ones were checked.
| hnrodey wrote:
| RealPlayer... RealAudio... immediately jettisoned back to
| the 90's :)
| oth001 wrote:
| Adobe Reader comes to mind
| deskamess wrote:
| Does this impact the Filezilla server or just the client?
| superasn wrote:
| That's why I still use http://ninite.com/ for most downloads.
|
| They have saved me so much headache not dealing with such bundled
| adware / malware.
| DpdC wrote:
| As has already been said, this is not news, nor is it a change,
| it is not news. It is not even something, that can be
| reprehensible to the people who maintain the Filezilla project.
| Funny to see people who have been using the software for half
| their lives, criticizing this. This can only surprise someone who
| installed filezilla for the first time, or had not installed it
| for half a lifetime..
|
| So crazy.
| Macha wrote:
| Some of the software the adware installer requires an opt out
| to not install can be harmful or hard to remove, like the
| "Search Offer powered by Bing" in the article linked elsewhere
| in this site. Even the free AVs will often start you as a trial
| for the paid version or have incredibly easy ways to convert
| your install to such a trial and nag the user to pay up once
| the trial expires, arguably reducing their computer security.
|
| I know HN has a strong libertarian bent, and uou could argue
| this is a free market, buyer beware situation, but in that
| case, wouldn't the criticism posted be part of that and how
| buyers know that they should beware?
| noxer wrote:
| So the people who dont know better pay for stuff they dont
| need? Sounds like literally everything else. Most people who
| buys cars dont know anything about cars and thus they likely
| overpay. This sucks but its in fact a "free market" thing.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| A free market, according to my econ prof at least, has:
|
| 1. easy entrance/exit to the market,
|
| 2. many buyers and sellers, and
|
| 3. perfect information availability.
|
| If the players don't have good information, it is at best a
| severely degraded free market.
| geocrasher wrote:
| In 2015 I wrote this blog post about Filezilla having a
| networking error:
|
| https://www.tidbitsfortechs.com/2015/08/how-to-solve-enetunr...
|
| The solution? WinSCP. Filezilla has been rubbish for _years!_
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| Wow, I just switched to Transmit a few weeks ago from years of
| using Filezilla...looks like I dodged a bullet.
| notsuoh wrote:
| Filezilla has been like this for years assuming you downloaded
| the regular version. There's a no-adware version, but it's
| kinda hidden.
| rubyist5eva wrote:
| I usually got it from brew cask, not sure which "version" it
| downloaded - never saw any ads in it, myself but either way -
| I'd rather just not deal with a scummy project anymore.
| kergonath wrote:
| Only the version downloaded from the developer's website
| included malware. Versions in various repositories are
| fine.
| KyleSanderson wrote:
| It has indeed been like this for nearly half a decade. To
| clarify, it's sourceforge that did this wrapping.
| user3939382 wrote:
| Tangentially related, but I had a Windows FTP client back in the
| day called LeechFTP that I loved and I miss it.
| tgsovlerkhgsel wrote:
| This is unfortunately nothing new.
|
| Ironically, Sourceforge (which many years ago had their own
| adware-adding program, i.e. otherwise-clean software would be
| infected if downloaded from SF) has cleaned up their act, started
| enforcing against adware, and as a result the SF version of
| FileZilla is clean (or at least was when I last checked).
| jorl17 wrote:
| I was still actively lurking around slashdot when the new guys
| came in and bought slashdot and sourceforge.
|
| I don't know if any of them are reading, but I think you've
| done a remarkable job. It saddens me that I don't get to
| experience your improvements because...ultimately...slashdot
| and sourceforge just don't turn up on my radar anymore.
|
| Nevertheless, I'd like to thank you guys!
| JeremyNT wrote:
| This is a really good tip in general. SF is under new
| management and they seem to really be trying to right the ship.
|
| It's probably too late for them to gain back meaningful market
| share given how popular github has become, but credit where
| credit is due.
| butz wrote:
| Looking at download filenames only versions for Windows have
| "sponsored" variants. Can I presume that version for macOS is
| clean?
| lnl wrote:
| I find it interesting that ads are considered acceptable and
| commonplace in Android and to a slightly lesser extent iOS apps;
| but on desktop they are seen as almost malware.
|
| To be clear, I also avoid it when I can, and most of the time ad-
| free or open-source alternatives are available (in this case I
| have been using WinSCP). I dislike the mobile app ecosystem with
| its plethora of garbage, privacy invading apps; and I am glad
| that desktop apps usually aren't like that. But if a program is
| much better than its alternatives and the ads are not too
| annoying, I guess I don't mind supporting its development via
| ads. Being a poor person from a poor country, I couldn't afford
| purchasing the program or donating to it, so ads sound like one
| way of supporting a program I like so much (though my ad views
| are probably worthless for the same reason).
|
| The only adware program I actually have is PotPlayer (the only
| thing that comes close is KMPlayer, which I used before; but it's
| originally built by the same developer and added ads even
| earlier). I think a few other programs I use had adware-bundled
| installers (e.g. JDownloader, CDisplayEx,...) but I had found
| adware-free installers. Even in the case of PotPlayer, it doesn't
| show ads, just an empty window (maybe again because I am in a
| poor country?) so I blocked the empty "ads" via hosts file.
| What's the point of annoying myself if that's not even supporting
| the developer? But if PotPlayer actually showed ads to me;
| assuming it didn't upload my private data and no comparable open-
| source/ad-free program emerged, I feel like I should be fine with
| it rarely showing some ads in the corner.
| thrower123 wrote:
| The well was so badly poisoned by malware in the late 90s/early
| 2000s that anyone who was active in that era has a visceral
| reaction to the idea of bundled shitware or ads in desktop
| software.
|
| You haven't lived until you've had to repeatedly clean out
| forty-five different search toolbars that your clueless
| relative managed to install alongside Adobe Acrobat...
| ev1 wrote:
| This isn't an image display ad; it's straight up browser-
| hijacker malware, new search tab replacement, URLs-you-enter
| redirector, entering your bank URL might not go to your bank
| type of shit.
|
| Unremovable and hidden also.
| yellowapple wrote:
| To be clear, I don't consider ads "acceptable" on my phone,
| either. If I download an application and there are ads, there's
| a high likelihood I'll either block the ads or - if that proves
| impossible - I'll uninstall the app entirely.
| cptskippy wrote:
| > I find it interesting that ads are considered acceptable and
| commonplace in Android and to a slightly lesser extent iOS
| apps; but on desktop they are seen as almost malware.
|
| Totally different beast. The Android and iOS variety are
| embedded in the App. On Windows they are almost always a third
| party application installed separately with it's own
| uninstaller and granted near admin rights to the machine.
|
| It's the difference between inviting your friend over to your
| home and him showing up wearing a Nike shirt, or showing up
| with a dude you've never met who is spinning a sign. He can
| roam about your house without your knowledge and doesn't leave
| when your friend does.
| roywiggins wrote:
| Usually Android ads are embedded in the apps. Close the app and
| the ad goes away. Uninstall the app and you won't see its ads
| again. Just _including ads_ in an application doesn 't make it
| adware.
|
| Adware infects the whole system, displaying popups and
| installing unwanted extensions in your web browser that follow
| you around. If FileZilla wants to include ads in the actual app
| that's one thing, but that's not what people are taking issue
| with.
| II2II wrote:
| I suspect there are various reasons why advertising is accepted
| on mobile platforms and not on desktop operating systems.
|
| One could simply be a difference in the user base. I am fairly
| certain those who object to advertising on desktop operating
| systems also object to it on mobile platforms, but there is a
| large number of people who use mobile devices who rarely use
| traditional computers.
|
| Another difference is intended use. Mobile devices are largely
| intended for media consumption, much as televisions, broadcast
| radio receivers, and newspapers/magazines. These are markets
| where advertising has been accepted for decades. Traditional
| computers are more likely to be used for productivity, where
| advertising has never been widely accepted.
|
| There is also the nature of the software itself. Software on
| mobile devices have a lower perceived value since it offers
| less value (at least in terms of features). The publishers of
| the software desire some means of generating revenue, so
| consumers have not been left with much of an option.
| KMnO4 wrote:
| One reason I'm opposed to adware on desktop is because it
| often leaks into the entire computer. If I install FileZilla
| and is has ads _only_ in the application, I would probably
| consider that acceptable.
|
| But instead, ads show up in my web browser, pop up from the
| systray, add themselves as shortcuts in my file manager, etc.
| It's the definition of malware.
|
| I use iOS which is mostly immune to this, but I know showing
| notification ads on Android while the app is closed is met
| with the same amount of criticism.
| kergonath wrote:
| How are notification ads even a thing? Showing ads _whilst
| I am trying to use the app_ is bad enough (particularly
| these full-screen ones that you can dismiss if you tap the
| tiny black cross on a grey background that shows up after
| 10 seconds), but actually interrupting me with a
| notification when I'm doing something entirely unrelated is
| a whole other level. I'm glad I never came across one of
| those.
| darkwater wrote:
| It really amazes me that people keeps using FileZilla or
| dedicated ftp graphical clients in general. Linux and Windows has
| built-in graphical clients in file managers, and I don't recall
| if MacOS Finder has the same.
| divingdragon wrote:
| Last time I used the built-in FTP client in Windows Explorer it
| was an awful experience (think it was Windows XP). It also does
| not support SFTP or SCP.
| jerieljan wrote:
| It sure does, Finder can easily connect to FTP and other
| network shares with Finder -> Go -> Connect to Server.
|
| Reasons I can think for dedicated graphical clients is the
| transfer log and the additional controls when connecting to
| servers. I agree that it's not really necessary unless you have
| very specific requirements, I guess.
| divbzero wrote:
| I think macOS Finder is limited to read-only FTP access [1]
| though there are alternatives [2] that mount drives through a
| variety of protocols.
|
| [1]: https://support.apple.com/guide/mac-help/network-
| address-for...
|
| [2]: https://mountainduck.io/
| kergonath wrote:
| The Finder is a bit rubbish though, for FTP. It never quite
| works like it should and likes to hang the Finder, if not the
| whole device, quite frequently. Transmit is brilliant, though.
| fireattack wrote:
| It's not really comparable. The default side-by-side view most
| of FTP graphical client use is ciritial and almost essential
| for any semi-serious use with FTP that is beyond just copying a
| few files.
|
| I do agree that most of people only use FTP for that, so I
| guess it's sufficient for average user. Protocol support would
| still be an issue though.
| Macha wrote:
| Dolphin also supports side by side view, it's the "Split"
| button. It's even present in the default toolbar, so it's not
| an obscure option.
| laurent123456 wrote:
| You can keep a list of different FTP connections in FileZilla
| and easily connect to one or the other. That's why I keep using
| it (although less and less these past few years as FTP isn't
| really a thing anymore).
| Macha wrote:
| Dolphin supports this, too. For any type of supported network
| location (FTP, SFTP, SMB, NFS, etc)
| unicornporn wrote:
| So, don't touch it. WinSCP for Windows and Cyberduck for macOS.
| willis936 wrote:
| In case anyone out there hasn't moved on: WinSCP is better than
| FileZilla ever was.
| iagovar wrote:
| When I looked to FileZilla alternatives some time ago, I was
| surprised that there wasn't actually many alternatives. WinSCP
| is my default now too.
| rsync wrote:
| It's been a long time ... perhaps 12 or 15 years ... but when
| I was driving a FreeBSD desktop I would install Konqueror as
| a file manager and then plug in:
|
| fish://
|
| ... addresses and browse SFTP-capable addresses very
| conveniently.
|
| I have no idea if any of these components (Konqueror ? fish
| ?) are still in use ?
|
| I thought it was a _tremendously convenient_ workflow and it
| was nice to not have a different application for file
| management and SSH file endpoints.
|
| Which leads me to my lament that _all these years later_ you
| can 't just put an sftp:// address into the mac finder. It's
| an almost comically blatant missing feature.
| KozmoNau7 wrote:
| It still works just as you'd expect in Dolphin (the current
| KDE file manager), you click in the breadcrumb address bar
| on top, type in fish:// and the address, and you get a
| login prompt.
|
| All of the other KIO slaves work as well, certainly
| SMB/CIFS works great and I use it all the time.
|
| KDE has all these nice convenient little features that just
| makes everyday tasks a bit easier.
| rsync wrote:
| How much KDE Do I need to install just to get dolphin?
|
| That is, if I am using a different window manager such as
| ion3...
| michaelmrose wrote:
| Depends on how it's packaged you could trivially end up
| with an extra GB of libraries. I guess it depends on
| whether that much storage is meaningful.
| majkinetor wrote:
| WinSCP also has epic automation interface which include
| PowerShell cmdlets, unlike mentioned competitors.
| patentatt wrote:
| Agreed, but FZ has built in support for backblaze b2. Anyone
| have an alternative? Other than cyberduck, the performance was
| too low to be useful to me.
| anamexis wrote:
| B2 has an S3-compatible API, so WinSCP should work.
| patentatt wrote:
| Good point! Last I was looking at this was before the B2 S3
| api was available. Might consider switching to WinSCP now.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| CyberDuck is a nicer-looking and more user-friendly alternative
| to both.
| javajosh wrote:
| Did not realize that CyberDuck has a Windows version; thanks!
| sonthonax wrote:
| So buggy though.
| nullify88 wrote:
| I do like CyberDucks features when it comes to cloud storage
| like S3, but I do miss the WinScp file commander like
| interface.
| sunsipples wrote:
| any chance you know of something comparable for linux? I have
| tried a half dozen or so in last few months and keep coming
| back to filezilla, maybe it's because it's familiar, but always
| like options.
| mpol wrote:
| There is also Gftp, which is most probably available in your
| distro.
|
| https://github.com/masneyb/gftp
| marcosdumay wrote:
| Just to add, you file manager probably does SCP and SFTP too.
| So, on Linux just launch whatever tool you use to browse and
| copy files, it will probably work seamlessly.
|
| It's Windows that does nothing out of the box, so people has
| to go after tools.
| blfr wrote:
| I use lftp. The website design tells you exactly how the tool
| works.
|
| https://lftp.yar.ru/
|
| One of the most valuable features is its ability to download
| a single file over multiple connections
| pget -n 4 your.file.tar.gz
|
| because many ISPs limit speed per flow and opening multiple
| of them, even to the same target, allows you to max out your
| connection.
| sunsipples wrote:
| appreciated, thank you
| lathiat wrote:
| I use this all the time not due to ISP limits but in
| Australia the 200-400ms latency limits you instead
| especially as you go over 50Mbit. Mirror command is also
| great :)
| dmoo wrote:
| +1 for lftp. On windows I use it via Cygwin for scheduled
| tasks etc. FileZilla has a speed advantage over winscp but
| nothing like the flexibility.
| SquareWheel wrote:
| WinSCP is so much better than Filezilla, I just run it in
| Wine.
| Macha wrote:
| Your file manager probably does FTP. Try enter a [s]FTP[s]://
| URL into your location field. Depending on your distro, for
| gnome or derivatives you might have to install a gvfs plugin
| package first.
| morganvachon wrote:
| When FileZilla started doing the adware thing years ago, I
| switched to WinSCP on Windows and never looked back. I was so
| pissed at FileZilla that I stopped using it on Linux even
| though their Linux builds didn't have any adware. gFTP is good
| enough for most servers, and recent versions fixed a lot of
| long standing bugs. On Mac it's Cyberduck all the way.
| vetinari wrote:
| There's also Cyberduck for Windows.
| jdmg94 wrote:
| For mac I had a paid FTP client called YummyFTP, the app was
| superb, however the developer passed away and the app stayed
| on 32 bits
| fireattack wrote:
| In the golden age of FTP there are plenty of great
| proprietary clients. Of of my mind I can think of (for
| Windows) FlashFXP, FTPRush, CuteFTP, SmartFTP, and so on.
| EricE wrote:
| I'm spoiled with Transmit :)
| mcyukon wrote:
| Transmit is good too, although I really liked the
| Scheduling function YummyFTP had. It was great for
| setting a large download to 2AM when the DSL network
| wasn't overloaded. Wish Transmit would add that feature.
| I suppose it can be done with Automator but it's not as
| nice as built in.
| dagw wrote:
| Last time I compared the two Filezilla was a lot faster on fast
| connections. Grabbing the same bunch of files from the same
| server it was as at times literally twice as fast as WinSCP.
| axiolite wrote:
| If you're talking nearly 10 years ago, yes I saw that too,
| but WinSCP has long since improved dramatically.
| CTOSian wrote:
| Alternative too, esp for console fans: Midnight Commander
| aasasd wrote:
| Could as well just use Double Commander, or platform-specific
| analogs, and have a good file manager for both local files and
| ftp/ssh. (Though admittedly fewer features might be supported
| over the net.)
| yellowapple wrote:
| This often works the other way around, too; remote file
| managers like WinSCP can usually do local things just fine.
| KayL wrote:
| wish Commander view add `ADDRESS` bar for quick dir changes.
| bayindirh wrote:
| WinSCP was using too much CPU when I last checked (years ago
| TBH), and it doesn't work on Linux.
|
| For macOS, I'm spoiled with Forklift, which does a lot of
| things out of the box, sufficiently.
| pas wrote:
| For Linux the default file managers all support SFTP/SCP.
|
| Also there's Krusader (KDE/Qt - https://krusader.org/ ) if
| you want something with two panes.
| bayindirh wrote:
| For most of the time, I use KDE's own KIO slaves but,
| sometimes for long running stuff I want something more
| advanced. TBH, my remote servers list is taking a lot of
| space on the left pane. :D
|
| Will take a look to Krusader, didn't check it for a very
| long time.
| joshgoldman wrote:
| Check crystalftp out
| gspr wrote:
| I occasionally use this software through Debian's package for it,
| which of course doesn't contain the adware. But the strategy
| employed here does leave me with a bit of a sour taste and a
| desire to stop using the software altogether.
| arbitrage wrote:
| don't hate the player, hate the game.
|
| this is the result of parasitic capitalism. i have no doubts
| that a dev who contributed so strongly to the opensource
| ecosystem for such a long time specifically wants to be in this
| situation. you wouldn't, i don't, they probably don't.
|
| how else are we supposed to support our families and the
| community? there's no other source of revenue or support for a
| freelance programmer in caretaker mode for a mature and stable
| codebase. donations don't cut it, obviously.
| corin_ wrote:
| Minor correction, I think you meant "I have doubts..." not "I
| have no doubts" (or you meant to double negative it later
| with "I have no doubt that... would _not_ want... ")
| C19is20 wrote:
| So why hide the 'good' version?
| anoncake wrote:
| Are you _seriously_ claiming that adware is the only way for
| a programmer to make money?
| rectang wrote:
| Open Source is not a business model, it is a _development
| methodology_ -- and that development methodology invites
| modifications by users under a license which upholds a set of
| conditions friendly to such modifications (spelled out in OSI
| 's Open Source Definition).
|
| _Nobody_ has to write software that abuses its users with
| freakin ' adware, proprietary or open source -- and any
| creator who does so should be shunned. All the more so if
| they simultaneously abuse us and invite open source
| collaboration. This isn't starving people being driven to
| steal food.
| swiley wrote:
| Most graphical DE shells on Linux will just mount sftp
| (scp/ssh) graphically, no need for stuff like this.
|
| People still say Linux DEs aren't user friendly but IMO they're
| much more so than other OSes largely because other OSes have a
| moat to protect.
| sgc wrote:
| I use FileZilla on Linux because the file manager integrated
| ftp clients were not very good, and did not save connections
| etc. Just less of a PITA. I see I should try gftp or another
| alternative though.
| deskamess wrote:
| I wonder if the Chocolatey version has the adware.
| hakube wrote:
| You've got SFTP and rsync. There's no need for these kind of
| stuff if you're on Linux. Some DEs file manager are giving you
| the option to mount SFTP servers
| greggturkington wrote:
| I was disappointed I had to scroll this far down on an HN
| thread to find "just use rsync!"
| fbnlsr wrote:
| As someone who's using Linux but not that much at ease with
| this, it's nice sometimes to have a GUI.
| chungy wrote:
| As someone that's spent multiple decades living on the
| command line for almost all my file management... sometimes I
| still open the GNOME file manager because a GUI makes a
| select few tasks simpler.
|
| It's all about the right tool for the job. Some people are
| more comfortable with a GUI for the majority of file
| management tasks, some people are more comfortable with the
| CLI for the majority of file management tasks. It's just a
| bit silly to be a zealot and put yourself through a lot of
| pain if one of these isn't optimal for whatever you're trying
| to do.
| rocky1138 wrote:
| In KDE you can access this sort of thing with the built-in
| GUI file manager right out of the box. You don't need a
| third-party app.
|
| 1. Open Dolphin (file manager)
|
| 2. Right click in the Places section on the left to add entry
|
| 3. Type `fish://<the-address>`
|
| 4. Click OK
|
| https://www.dedoimedo.com/computers/plasma-dolphin-fish-
| ssh....
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-03-27 23:01 UTC)