Slashdot Mirror
Download.com Now Wraps Downloads In Bloatware
MrSeb writes "At Download.com, page designs have been repeatedly tweaked over the years to push its updater software (now called TechTracker), TrialPay offers, and the site's mailing list. Bothersome, perhaps, but certainly not inexcusable. They've got to make money off the site somehow, after all, and banner ads don't always do the job. Now, things have taken a turn for the worse: Cnet has begun wrapping downloads in its own proprietary installer. Not only will this cause the reputation of free, legitimate software to be tarred by Cnet's bloatware toolbars, homepage changes, and new default search engines — but Cnet is even claiming that their installer wrapping is 'for the users.'"
Jeez, you expect this stuff out of fly-by-night crapware sites. But even I trusted CNET (until now, anyway), and I'm about as cynical a bastard as there is when it comes to downloading software apps off the net.
So, is Tucows still around? I have occasionally used SourceForge, but I never felt confident they were policing their binaries very well (that could be an unfair presumption on my part).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
But if you're publishing GNU'd software through them, you could demand they publish the source to the wrapper.
The last few Windows apps I've downloaded from there came with their own "INSTALL TOOLBAR FOO" now in the installer. PDFCreator is one example.
This is why we're headed towards managed computing and app stores. The game is just too dirty. Joe User has no idea whats going on. His computer has a dozen toolbars and all he's done is follow his geeky friend's advice to install stuff like PDFCreator or other GPL products. I'd rather just be microbilled 20 cents or whatever they make per install. Shame no one has properly cracked the microbilling nut.
I haven't downloaded anything from them in at least half a decade. Just out of curiosity, what has anyone gone to their site to download in recent times?
This is no problem for me!
People still used that site? Really? I stopped about early 2000 when it began being full of spyware infested programs.
I stopped using CNET a very long time ago. Sourceforge.net and Filehippo.com are about all I trust anymore. This really doesn't surprise me, the reason I stopped using CNET is that I got infected downloading something from their site years ago. The only thing I hate trying to download and find are Microsoft compatible drivers for old hardware companies that have long since bit the dust. I usually try to convince those end users to switch to linux after I confirm the kernel has drivers for their crappy old hardware.
Tucows.com to the rescue
Apple already has an App Store for the Mac, and Microsoft will soon as well for Windows 8.
Moves like this will drive users in droves to download applications from a known, clean source.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just move to another, or go to sourceforge. Who needs this crap?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
3. Is my direct download URL still available?
Yes. Right under the main "Download Now" button is the direct HTTP download URL which registered CNET members can access.
http://cnet-upload.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2064
There's a link for direct download as well - cancel the auto bloatware download, click the direct link, all done.
Who actually downloads stuff from download.com anymore?
So now when I have to deal with Windows boxes and install stuff on there, I can't use the only site I've used in a decade. God Dammit To Hell. The sad part is that Ubuntu's Software Center and all the rest of it's ilk owes at least a tip of the hat to Download.com's ratings system. it's helped me immeasurably with the ratings systems. Although I never trusted the Editor's ratings - too easy to pay off. The user's ratings were usually right on the money.
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
c|net is long gone, they are now CBS Interactive.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Didn't know download.com was still around...
Mac App Store already in place. Windows App store on the way.
If I ever have to go back to 1999 and want to download AIM, Winamp or AdAware, I'll be screwed! Seriously, who the fuck uses download.com anymore?
FileHippo also has an update checker:
http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/
Like it or not, unless Microsoft decides to make their planned app store open to everybody, those sites do provide a reasonable service in notifying users of updates to software that don't have built-in update checking mechanisms.
If you would like to opt out of the CNET Download.com Installer you can sign up for a Premium subscription or PPD promotion, both of which are being excluded at this time.
If find it hilarious that they are talking about how this is 'for the users' and such a great thing, yet the 'premium' subscriptions don't have to deal with this bullshit. If it's sooooo great, shouldn't it be available only to premium users?
If it's so beneficial for the users, then why would someone want to pay for premium to get rid of it (as they suggest)?
Where did you get the idea that the wrapper is based on GPL'd code? I don't see anything here about a license for that code (and I'm not about to go try it myself.)
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
It's pretty bad when torrents are more trustworthy than free software download sites like download.com/tucows/etc. I can get the same program from torrents without worry, plus torrent sites like http://www.kat.ph/ or http://demonoid.me/ have lots of comments on their torrents so you can also check the torrent's reputation. even for free software torrent is way to go, but problem is with more and more companies wrapping their programs with adware/malware/bloatware/spam popups/etc. It makes it more enticing to just say screw it and go pirate the full versions or to skip the free version and pirate a competitors paid version. I would pirate the paid versions or paid versions competitors to free software on download.com or tucows any time. the more companies and/or developers do this the more of us turn to piracy. There is a lesson to be learned, make a good product, and don't wrap it in malware/bloatware/scareware/spam/adware/any virus like behaving extra then people may pay a couple bucks for it.
Great, an installer to handle the installers. Yet another layer of crapness.
Now people know how I feel about installers in general. We shouldn't even have to have them. Some of the best apps you can get are single files (not even zipped), and they work just great with no 100 step install processes in sight. Okay you need to specify the download location, but that's about it, and with a purely Metadata filesystem, we wouldn't even need to do that.
Files should be unified in a single folder with everything self-contained. Okay, shared DLLs save a bit of memory, but in this day and age, that's not an issue anymore. Backing up data and compatibility is a lot simpler also when everything is self-contained in a single folder and not dumped in the registry, all over the OS, in the user's "My Documents" folder, and god knows where else.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
I have no idea what "download.com" is, but who on earth would run such a thing? Doesn't this mean that nobody will use the site any more?
What's a CNET?
Ever installed Adobe Reader, Quicktime,Or Real Player? It seems to be a trend with even legitimate software I mean how else is a company gonna get their toolbar, registry cleaner, search engine, etc onto your computer? I must admit I am not that shocked to see CNET doing this and I believe it's only a matter of time before it spreads everywhere.
Chris Sheppard
For every website that has one of these "download managers", I seek out and find the direct download method. Sometimes it is an MSI file (there's one available for Google's Chrome and Picasa if you Google for it), sometimes it is an exe. If there isn't a direct download, I don't download.
It isn't the "install toolbar" bit that gets on my nerve but rather once they've got a program running on your system and one that needs to access the Internet to work (i.e. you've got to allow it through your Windows 7 firewall), they can then dump any information on your computer, in your web browser history or registry back to their computers. Uh uh. No thanks.
These installers are a huge privacy and security risk.
is this downlad.com you speak of? are you saying there are people who install software without a package manager? well i never *faint*
App Store = Repository
Of course. Linux (and other UNIX) users have had an App Store, many of them, for ages.
In a way CNET was as well - many users used CNET to get a variety of applications, shareware and freeware. But what I'm saying here is that things like this will drive more people to first party app stores over the secondary sources...
Linux users will just carry on before as they have enough sense and knowledge to know where to go for applications.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Can't say about the future of the program - but Ninite WORKS, and it is spectacular.
I can't count the number of fresh XP/7 installs I've done in the last few years, but Ninite has been a god-send.
C|Net has become nothing more than a shell of itself. Its hardware reviews are still a valuable resource - but what is really needed is a large, community driven project that has community reviews from verified users only. Think Amazon.com ratings, without the Amazon.com.
The trouble with micropayments is that the overhead of security, accountability, auditability and (sigh) taxability is too damn much. Paypal offers a "micropayment rate" of 5% + US$0.05 per transaction which is 30% of a 20 cent payment -- not too horrible all things considered, but making users jump through that hoop is even more off-putting than "free registration required to download".
I downloaded a copy of avg free antivirus a couple of weeks ago due to a scare I had over a hacked gaming account. Turns out my computer was clean *until* I installed avg. Toolbars, background apps, web page "helper" urls instead of normal text all over the place. Internet Explorer will no longer manitian custom settings like the default zoom level I prefer. I can assure you I said flat out no to all "suggested" add-ons during the install. I assumed avg had turned into adware but perhaps it was download.com that was to blame. Neither would surprise me and I now know to avoid cnet at all costs. WTG cnet, you now join the ranks of Sony as scumbag organizations. Unbelievable.
I only use CNET for PCDecrapifier. Thankfully I archived on a DVD so I do not have to use that site again. The installer is really annoying and I consider it adware/malware as it always tries to run in the background and will default to install spyware if you do not carefully unclick boxes when installing software.
I have noticed uTorrent also comes with its own package that tries to install spyware infested toolbars. How annoying and it feels like 2007 all over again. People do not want this crap and many mac users cite this as one of the reasons for the switch. No BestBuy software installers, toolbars, and people shoveling crap or trying to hijack your Windows based system all the time. I do not blame them
Now my mom it's gonna bother me every two days instead every two weeks in order to clean up her laptop from toolbars, updaters, default search engines and only god knows what other sh!tware...
I can hear her calling me and say: "Pablo, la compu esta lenta y ya no juegar los jueguitos del Facebook!!" (Pablo, the PC its slower and I can't play the Facebook games anymore!!)
If they are distributing it with any GPL apps, it would seem to me that their installer would now be GPLed.
Someone want to send them a request/demand for source?
[Note: My legal knowledge is not based on anything remotely resembling a law degree]
I hope that downloads from cnet.com plumment. I also hope that I can find other download sites for the few (about once or twice a year) things that I used them for.
TFA lists an email address for feedback. I'm not certain that it's appropriate for end-users, but I didn't let a little thing like that stop me from letting them know what I think about their little 'utility'. Perhaps others should do the same.
When moderating, assume I have not yet had my coffee.
you can just open the exe with your compression utility and bob's your uncle
annoying as fuck yes, but not rock solid either
I just sent the following email to Download.com:
Please be advised that your your "CNET Download.com installer" is in violation of the terms of my software. Section 4a) permits distribution UNMODIFIED copies only. Additionally, section 4c) does not permit "bundling" with other software components.
Please remove my software from your site immediately, as the reputation of my application is now at risk.
Sincerely,
Steven Greenberg
Author, GSpot Codec Appliance
From their about page:
Software Submissions
We do not take software submissions from publishers. The site is user focused, we analyse the software market daily for popular software to add.
Since the switch I have stopped downloading anything from them. If you click the link to show all information it usually has the developers site, and many have the clean download available directly.
Is there a quality download site left?
The problem I have with ninite is that I can't specify the installation options. I don't want programs to install to my Quick Launch and I don't want other programs taking over as the default viewer/player for my files. Other than that I think it's a great service. If they ever address my quibble I strongly consider using it.
I've yet to try Ninite for Linux. Perhaps that will work out well.
I still, don't know for the life of me how tv network X can charge advertiser Y for some show when for all they all know, when the commercials come on, people could be browsing the web on their laptop(or any portable device), taking a nap, putting it on mute, changing channels, taking a dump, cooking in the other room or *gasp*, it was recorded and people skipped your silly commercials completely. It seems to me the advertisers would have already woken up.
I understand that they have to make money somehow.
However, bugging your customers to death has seldom been a winning proposition, unless you are Apple.
Ummmmmmm, no.
http://www.oldversion.com/
forgot all about CNET, haven't used them in years....
If CNet would offer a downloader/installer that would stay on the system and could check all programs installed through it for updates and update them automatically, people would love it. They could support it with ads, or give you a paid version which will back up your settings to "the cloud"; they can even make the installs portable so you can remove them when not using them, and redownload them when needed (how many free programs do we install that we almost never use?)
Well Microsoft do for users what Apple have done for us.... Bring on an App store and put the bloatware sites out to pasture
U owe it to your customers
Talk about quick way to shutdown your download business.
1. Developers will pull out because they don't want their software modified without their permission or deal with software problems that was not cause by themselves.
2. Users will avoid it like the plague once the word is out because they don't want their system to be installed with bunch of software that they didn't ask for.
3. Plenty of alternative download site out there. Majorgeek, filehippo, fileforum to take over.
I would like to have sit in on that business decision meeting just to see who is the brainiac who came up with this decision and the facial reaction from the employees
I used to love download.com.
Once a company steps down the RealPlayer path, though... I am done with them.
That gives me a good laugh. Insightful in the modern world is colluding against the least colourful guy at the poker table as if he isn't even there.
Now if I were to disable my putrid content blocker, the first thing that happens is that I become less effective at my day job, because my mind has trouble filtering anything that blinks, flashes, throbs, or scrolls. The visual edge and motion detector is part of the predation reflex. My predation reflex is robust and immediately recruits part of my brain that would otherwise be earning me income.
Ignoring that, my conscious response to advertisement is to make a mental note that the vendor isn't competing on merit. I win most of my battles at the store rather than in front of the fridge. I lose all my battles in front of the fridge. If I put it in there, I'm allowed to eat it. Hallelujah!
In order for advertising to be effective, they need to turn the world of consumption into a giant fridge of immediate pickle and prosciutto goodness. For example, PayPal and online ordering with credit credentials liable to go walk-about. But the goods arrive quickly, so no matter.
In the store, having set aside a block of time just for this purpose, I'm able to recruit the whole of my rational brain to the task of rational consumption. As unreliable as rationality is in human affairs, there is in fact an on switch, should you choose to use it.
I choose to use it. Which means that the advertising to someone like me has little upside for the vendor, either. I'm not claiming I'm not influenced by advertising. What I'm claiming is that I make my decisions when the influence is counterbalanced by more powerful forces, of which I happen to have some.
The advertisers don't consider this argument worth much. For the small percentage of the population that successfully defects, the vast majority eventually (after say 100,000 to 1,000,000 lifetime ad impressions) falls into learned helplessness. The cable TV companies all know this. For a month they offer to part for free on your front lawn a giant white truck full of 500 salty snacks ranging from 100% MSG on down. Even after you narrow down to the five channels with more carbohydrates than smut and jiggle, it gets pretty easy pretty quickly to reach for the salty chips in any moment of weakness.
The credit cards with the points system is pretty much the same thing. They're cultivating you to believe you're getting something for free. No, not even slightly. You're basically just ripping off the guy who does business in cash, by having a rule that if a vendor takes CC the vendor can't offer a cash discount for not providing the CC service which therefore must have zero actual value. Costs the retailer a lot for zero value, I must say. But you might score a free flight to destination tropical chip truck. This is for when the truck on your lawn hasn't shaken out enough of your loose coin.
The average person starts to rationalize as if this "something for nothing" actually exists. Most people engage in impulse purchasing, so it becomes easy to rationalize "I was going to do it anyway, I might as well collect me some perks" such as free downloads from Joe's Ziphouse Emporium.
I don't engage in impulse shopping. I'm not willing to pay the impulse shopping tax (watching any of 99% of the Flash content ever produced) for a trivial economic perk.
Anyone here with a compact ID whom you convince to turn off their ad-blocking to help the finances of download.com is not going to do anything for the finances of people who pay money to advertise there. You're just shifting the chump. In theory, we're all chip-truck addled morons. In practice, a few of us take exception.
All those millions of
The sortware they are bundling is an updater / tracking installer right?
I'm guessing they saw the success of the OS bundled app store, and the rumors of the Windows 8 app store and realized the writing is on the wall for the "go to ad laden 3rd party website" download model they have.
Legally I think they completely messed up by adding these installer wrappers, but you can bet it will happen again and from download sites other than cnet. Time to nip this practice in the bud; it will grow like kudzu.
And that's why I have used FileHippo (when I need of Windows software) for years.
Yes, I can confirm firsthand that they're doing it, from several days ago. I downloaded a new version of software I am already using; the developer was funneling everyone to CNET to get it, so they probably knew what CNET was doing. The download was an EXE that was obviously not kosher, since the filename was the usual one prepended with "cnet_". I knew to be suspicious, but ran it anyway and declined the toolbar crap, etc.
The result was a pristine copy of the actual installer sitting in my Downloads directory. THAT is the one I'm saving for future rein-stalls, no CNET bloatware in sight. I'd expect any developer that agrees to this, though, is going to take such grief from users that they quickly share that grief with CNET. This tactic won't survive very long. This is one tiny instance where the market will work as intended.
You can configure Google to just omit the domain from search results - problem solved. Not like there is a shortage of download sites such that users should actually consider putting up with this kind of crap.
Now that I've made the world a better place on a Monday, what should I do?
everyone please write a bad review to warn the others
As soon as they consumed versiontracker.com, there was bound to be evil soon to follow.
No, I'm sorry, that's not how it works. It is inexcusable. Just because your business model sucks, that does not mean you get a free pass to engage in shoddy practices.
Kidbro has been roaming the streets for years, giving free food to hungry passers by. Lately, he's realised that food is not for free, so he's started sprinkling the goods with knock out drugs, enabling him to pick his customers wallets when they've gone around the corner and passed out. Bothersome, perhaps, but certainly not inexcusable. He's got to make money of his sham, after all, and gratious donations don't always do the job.
Fuck off.
May we live long and die out
http://flattr.com/ seems to have it about right. You add money to your flattr account, then you can pay in small amounts and it all gets totaled up and distributed at the end of the month, where they take a flat 10%.
Seriously? Download.com became that place where noobs go because they heard geeks talk about it 5 years ago. CNet lost its chops so long ago I've been through at least on car since then. No self-respecting geek would be caught dead downloading software from CNet these days.
Great way to make yourself popular and build trust.
I noticed that there was some wrapper around an application that I found VIA GOOGLE on download.com. I just laughed it off at the time but now that I see a ./ article on it, I'll speak. I wouldn't use it because I'm not a freaking idiot. I found the name of the app and copy-pasted it into the Google search form in another tab.
I now (jokingly) place copyright on the concept of a browser plugin that allows the user to highlight a program name, right-click, and have it "Search Google" for it. Oh, wait..... Heh :)
Anyway, I'm rambling. Point of the post: I refuse to use them again. Ever. Even if they undo what they've done. Trust is down the toilet now.
you were lucky... I had to fake my death to escape from Reader's Digest...
Did it work?
It still doesn't matter to me because of Linux source repositories.
fuck you
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I needed a program and that was where I was sent. Either there or another site that was doing the same thing. When the program finished downloading, my anti-virus warned me about a problem. I deleted the file and it took me a while before I finally found a site that had the program itself and NOT a download and install piece of crapware.
This is also EXTEREMELY dangerous. The installer could download and install a virus or trojan and have me infected before my anti-virus even knew it was there. Stay away from these sites! The risk is just too large.
In Windows, I rarely install any programs directly anymore, whenever I can help it (especially non-OSS); I install everything into a sandbox instead:
www.sandboxie.com
Basically, Sandboxie stops any nasty programs from spreading bloat all over your system, and gives you a great degree of control on how to restrict anything you install.
It is perfect for temporarily installing the kind of program you only need to use once, but are wary of bloat, or that you just don't trust 100%; I also use it to run Firefox (and other vulnerable internet-connected programs), in case I run across something nasty, so it doesn't spread to the rest of my system.
Mostly from the mid-to-late 90's, & into the early 21st century (circa 1995-2002). I used to deal with CNET/ZdNet quite extensively, & I had "5/5 rated wares" on their sites galore in my day in that timeframe - for the MOST part? They were "ok" to deal with (for the MOST part)
My wares? Well, they did well in the trade rags, tech shows, & one ware even going into a certified MS partners' wares to this very day in code in fact!
I moved on from freeware/shareware work though - that is a YOUNGER MAN's game imo, especially when you're 1st 'starting out' out of academia OR during it (so you have SOMETHING to show folks you interview with mainly, & yes, to do something nice too + "sharpen the sword" when you're not working "in the field/art & science" between jobs, or as a noob/rookie imo, mostly!).
I've mainly been into programming DB systems (larger ones as time went on in Client-Server designs), & IS/IT/MIS work since those days... money's there, & jobs too usually (when not 'off-shored' that is), because nobody's data or the way they process it is EXACTLY the same, so coders are needed (especially moving data between companies).
Anyhow/anyways:
CNET/ZDNet - They CAN be a "tough lot" to deal with... but this updater doesn't sound ALL THAT BAD really!
I mean, hey, I know FOR A FACT, that they're not alone in pushing those from what I recall either...
E.G.-> Other shareware/freeware sites have tools like that, above & beyond site-driven tools for it, but not all do of course!
(I don't like sites-based ones, or email really (a pain in the latter), especially where you have to have cookies, javascript, iframes, etc. active, which I DO NOT LIKE @ all & avoid when/where I can, for obvious reasons especially nowadays (malscripted pages are EVERYWHERE, even @ the "bigboys"' sites!)).
Perhaps it's NOT such a "bad thing" but then, I have been "out of the game" for nearly a decade now though, so... things might have changed & NOT for the better!
I.E.-> It used to be on sites like CNET/ZdNet & even smaller ones like MajorGeeks that ALL YOU COMPETED WITH was other "shareware/freeware" guys...
HOWEVER?
Then the "BIG SOFTWARE PRODUCTION OEM's" like MS, Norton, McAfee & others started pushing their wares in "our space" too... got harder + more competitive then, & I was moving into other realms of coding (DB work as I noted above). Didn't have time for it anymore.
APK
P.S.=> I don't care what ANYONE says? Yes, even shareware-freeware work IS WORK - especially because YOUR STUFF just "has to work" on many, Many, MANY systems out there, worldwide with a HUGE permutations of setups... this? This is NOT THE CASE in MIS/IS/IT environs where a LOT is "held in check as standard setups" on desktops + tools allowed for instance... that makes the job of in-house dev. work a bit easier than freeware/shareware work... imo @ least!
I'll also say 1 last thing:
The quality of wares on the "shareware/freeware" circuit has gone "up, Up, UP & AWAY" for the better imo, overall - sure, THIS "comes with time" & dedicated development/improvement via user-feedback & coders' work...
HOWEVER? Well... Perhaps the introduction of the "big boys" (the MS' of the world I noted above etc.) help with that, but I still am not "happy" those folks decided to enter "our space"...
I mean, what's next? SourceForge with MS apps?? Doubt that, closed source & all, & just being "facetious" is all on this last account!
... apk
Unfortunatly I see those stupid crap wares all the time, even on military computers. I was constantly having to uninstall those stupid things. I then ask the user "do you know what those do?", I get the deer in the headlights look. I tell them and a few weeks later, I'm back to uninstall the same damn thing on the same damn computer. WE DON'T WANT THIS CRAP! Stop pushing out this retarted software that does nothing but slow down our pcs both at home and in an office.
CNET acquired (and effectively destroyed) VersionTracker.com, which for years was the primary source for Mac software downloads. But at least macupdate,com is still around for all the stuff that doesn't get into the App Store.
Well, they're keeping the direct HTTP download link.. it's there below the Download Now button
So it won't be a problem for us (the people who used to use Download.com)
Your software is not bundled with anything else.
The end user ends up downloading a package that has your software in it and nothing else.
They don't modify your software nor the software package.
Try Softpedia. They will tell you if the software comes with ad-banners, toolbars or other limitations of use. They don't have a software updater, but you can subscribe to receive updates about your favorites tools.
2001 called, they want back their setup-programs. Today there are packet managers, either on good OS', or even on Windows with .msi packages. And installing softweare from sites like download.com was never a good idea. just go to the homepage of the software program.
I can't remember the last time I used one of these sites - why don't people simply download the software from the developer's website? To me it seems like the most obviously trustworthy source. Are there a lot of bits of software that are solely hosted on download sites?
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Not only Download.com started to follow this bad business model:
Softonic.com sample - VideoLan
http://i.imgur.com/0SJlX.png
Afreecodec.com sample - K-Lite Mega Codec Pack
http://i.imgur.com/35znj.png
Brothersoft sample - OrbitDownloader
http://i.imgur.com/e4t98.png
Tucows.com sample - CamStudio
http://i.imgur.com/yJwYY.png
http://i.imgur.com/XdmJO.png
I think were looking at this the wrong way,
Let me explainI’m in college and I make extra money on the side from PC repair. A LOT of what I do is clean up from 3rd party crapware installs. This could make me more money in the long run =)
Keep going C|Net beer doesn’t buy its self !
I pulled a "std. /. maneuver" in my init. reply: I DIDN'T "RTFA", which IS NOT my "usual style" but... the folks @ CIS Tool have granted me a membership usage of the CIS Tool for Windows 7 (I have been waiting on this for 11++ months now)...
So, I spent MOST of my evening into the a.m. working with it & I am admittedly operating on ZERO sleep today... which is OK - I can catch up later today hitting the sack earlier than usual is all!
(That's the WHY of why I didn't RTFA source - no b.s., honest-to-god truth!)...
It's a LOT tougher imo than CIS Tool was for Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 imo!
Anyhow/anyways - enough b.s. & excuses out of me already! Here goes:
"I was with you up to this bit - I personally don't agree that a downloader that rams toolbars onto the user's PC is a good thing at all. Is it possible you're confusing the Cnet Downloader with Cnet TechTracker, which is a program which checks for new versions of installed apps from download.com?" - by Kalriath (849904) on Tuesday August 23, @07:22AM (#37176386)
There were other download sites, I am not sure anymore which ones, that had std. "stand-alone" Win32 Portable Executables you could use to "push" updates & even fresh apps to shareware/freeware sites "back in the day"!
IIRC, mostly this came about around 2001 - 2003 iirc though.
It's been a LONG while for me in that capacity as I noted earlier in the reply you responded to...
Heck, I didn't even KNOW CNet did such things period... !
In fact, last I recall, circa MAYBE 2002 @ the latest, was that they had a website you pushed your wares up to & filled in a form for version control + comments on changes as the shareware/freeware author! Same w/ ZDNet iirc... but, don't quote me on it or the dates... much of that time is very "blurred" on specifics for me (though I found an old Excel spreadsheet 2 days ago with my original apps downloads counts which made me laugh... I put a LOT of effort into that then, I was a "noob" just out of CSC oriented academia 1995-1999 really trying to learn more about computing & programming on as many fronts as I could then is all... I really had MORE energy than I do now I think also! The market was GREAT, & my then g/f could not believe all the checks that came in the mail every day (ranging from $20 - $100 a day for a good run in fact circa 1996-2000 or so in fact)).
I miss it @ times, but then again, I don't - making corrections & taking criticism? STINGS! It just does. I am sure you know what I mean.
However - heck, again: Man - it's been SO LONG, I might even be "off" on that account too!
(That's right, I am "getting old" & noted this today to a guy @ a PC repair shop while I sold off a couple 250gb SATA II disks to - that my brain doesn't work as well as it used to (far from it imo, I passed the typical "peak" of 40 more than 1/2 a decade ago - I literally have forgotten more than most folks will ever know on a PC, telling myself "It's ok - I just have to know the general question to ask, & the net or books take care of the rest" but... it's NOT that simple anymore on details (especially OS &/or programming details nowadays and it's NOT just because of change... I really do NOT think I am QUITE as "sharp" as I used to be memory-wise is all!)).
Anyhow, more b.s. excuses from me, as I attempt to "own up" to the fact I didn't RTFA (but, that's the "/. way", right?).
NO, I am NOT exactly "crazy" about the idea of a toolbar type system either, because all those have shown me over time is that they are GEARED TO MARKETING TYPES getting information from a user mostly, most times. Perhaps this is an exception to what's been shown myself, and doubtless yourself, over time with browser toolbars & such, but... I doubt it. TOO much history is against that viewpoint. Would be nice to know it's NOT for that though. I mean, don't those sites get "enough" out of freeware devs especially in their efforts?
Sorry, check your math - 5 cents is 25% of 20 cents.
I have a small web site where I offer free software downloads I've written myself. I have had numerous experiences with sites such as this that snag my software and put it up on their site without even bothering to ask for permissions or tell me about it.
the only clue I get is when I get emails from people complaining about bugs I fixed a year ago. Apparently those sites can't be bothered to link back to my site.
About the only solution I can think of is to have some notice in the application itself say
"If you didn't download this from [insert your url here] then a) uninstall it b) go to [insert your url here] c) download it again d) re-install it"
or something to that effect.
A small number of sites have done it correctly: they don't take the files they just link to my site and they tell me about it. In those cases I'm grateful and reciprocate by linking back to them. But they're they only ones making any money off of it. Since I get free web hosting to me money just doesn't enter into the equation.
A question: you are prompted with an option or Spyware/tools/Shitty-stuff from their installer is anyway installed on your system without you receiving a dialog box or a notice?
Yep, Filehippo is what I use on my Windows machines. Clean downloads, and it is pretty good at finding what needs an update. It doesn't show LibreOffice updates though.
I never trusted download.com, and so never used it. I always assumed that they were bundling crapware in with the downloads, because that website was so hideous, it looked like a fly by night operation.
Bring back ftp.cdrom.com
Hey all,
I’m a writer at CNET and Download.com, and personally I’ve been getting a lot of feedback on the Download.com Installer. I have absolutely nothing to do with the development or approval of the installer, but I wanted to assure you that I’ve been forwarding on your complaints to the appropriate people.
I have no news of changes being made to the installer as of yet, but I can assure you that the people in charge of it are listening to your complaints and are strongly considering options for improving the experience. I can’t say whether the installer will ever go away because CNET is seeing a much higher download completion rate than before it was in use. I have not been provided with numbers to back this up, yet. However, your feedback does appear to be reaching its target.
In the meantime, if you’re a developer and would like your software to be excluded from the installer, you can send a request for exclusion here: cnet-installer@cbsinteractive.com. No requests have been denied so far, to the best of my knowledge.
If you’re a Download.com reader, logging into your CNET account (at the top right corner of the page) will give you a text link on the download page that allows you to directly download the program you want, bypassing the installer. The link appears just below the green Download.com icon, and reads, “Direct Download Link.”
You are all more than welcome to continue sending your complaints and concerns to me, and I can forward them on. I can be reached at seth.rosenblatt@cnet.com. You can also send them to cnet-installer@cbsinteractive.com.
p.s. Yes, I'm posting this on a couple of sites. This is not an official CNET response, but me personally taking matters into my own hands to let you know you're being heard. In other words: BE GENTLE! :)