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?
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...
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
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
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.
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.
Er... by that logic, the WinZIP installer (or NSIS installer, or X, Y, Z installer) is "open source" if I use it to install a GPL game. Not true.
The GPL only applies to the source code and binaries produced therein, and wrappers, compressors and installers are fine so long as they don't form almost the complete binary itself (and it's not as simple as a bit-count, but by functionality).
Also, by your logic, any application that bundles or uses GPL executables would subject it to the GPL - also not true - so 99.9% of those "video convertor" utilities that use things like ffmpeg.exe would also be GPL (and things like the iPlayer downloader).
Please don't spread GPL bullshit. They are perfectly entitled to do this, and we're all perfectly entitled to never touch it with a bargepole.
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
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?
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.
Ummmmmmm, no.
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%.
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.
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.
Sweet you can download that here: http://download.cnet.com/Sandboxie/3000-2144_4-10371434.html
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.
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.
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
They have that, it's called TechTracker. And the CNet Downloader rams it in your face too.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
CNET/ZDNet - They CAN be a "tough lot" to deal with... but this updater doesn't sound ALL THAT BAD really!
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?
I mean, what's next? SourceForge with MS apps?? Doubt that, closed source & all, & just being "facetious" is all on this last account!
... apk
Actually, funny you mention that... MS has a few apps on Sourceforge, including what has to be the best Open Source installer packager for Windows - WiX.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
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