FreeFileSync 7.3

[FileHandler]

this is standard practice for many big names nowadays. For example, I can't recall the number of times I accidentally installed Yahoo Toolbar while installing Oracle's Java Runtime.

I don't share your lax attitude. Opens the door to an ever increasing downward spiral imo. By the same token you can shrug off pretty much everything.

Many freeware programmers still take pride in NOT following that route - big names or not - and I've seen quite a few of them complaining about FFS, urging users to complain to SourceForge and demand it be dropped from their list.

What you may not realize, bundling crapware in this sneaky way - by not telling up front like Oracle does, but without hint for the default install, and also the cheeky way of still asking for donations - makes people lose their trust into freeware, and also their willingness to support good programmers. The bad reputation rubs off on others who don't deserve it.

[I am Baas]

this is standard practice for many big names nowadays. For example, I can't recall the number of times I accidentally installed Yahoo Toolbar while installing Oracle's Java Runtime.

<br sab="730">I don't share your lax attitude. Opens the door to an ever increasing downward spiral imo. By the same token you can shrug off pretty much everything. <br sab="731"><br sab="732">Many freeware programmers still take pride in NOT following that route - big names or not - and I've seen quite a few of them complaining about FFS, urging users to complain to SourceForge and demand it be dropped from their list.<br sab="733"><br sab="734">What you may not realize, bundling crapware in this sneaky way - by not telling up front like Oracle does, but without hint for the default install, and also the cheeky way of still asking for donations - makes people lose their trust into freeware, and also their willingness to support good programmers. The bad reputation rubs off on others who don't deserve it.

I am with Andrew on this. FFS is free of adware. TPFC extraction instructions will be modified soon.

Did you run FFS installer? There is nothing sneaky about its behavior. Also, I do not see why Sourceforge should remove FFS from its listing; I don't think it violates the term of service. Only the source code is hosted there.

[FileHandler]

@ I am Baas
Different opinions. You and Andrew wouldn't mind if this site drowns in software that comes bundled with crapware. But I object to it for the reasons I mentioned above, recommending this site to people etc blah blah

Andrew makes it look like it's no big deal when he accidentally installs unwanted toolbars. I cannot confirm, I had the company computer staff coming to my desk and taking my machine with them, advising me to not visit such sites again.

What I fail to see are the advantages for you and Andrew? Why do you advocate it? I see only drawbacks. Why would it hurt it you, if programmers stuck to the old etiquette of care-free freeware? What do you gain - you personally - by having to deal with this? Seeing you defending it so adamently makes me better understand what SYSTEM said about it:

I find that the democratic way of determining the publicity of a program with votes is indeed hurting our reputation
...
TPFC used to have a very strict policy against bundleware or adware. That policy is no longer enforced in practice because programs like FreeFileSync can easily remain in the database even if they start to bundle crapware later on.
...
The result is that the visitors can't trust us as much as before.

[SYSTEM]

@ I am Baas
Different opinions. You and Andrew wouldn't mind if this site drowns in software that comes bundled with crapware. But I object to it for the reasons I mentioned above, recommending this site to people etc blah blah

Andrew makes it look like it's no big deal when he accidentally installs unwanted toolbars. I cannot confirm, I had the company computer staff coming to my desk and taking my machine with them, advising me to not visit such sites again.

What I fail to see are the advantages for you and Andrew? Why do you advocate it? I see only drawbacks. Why would it hurt it you, if programmers stuck to the old etiquette of care-free freeware? What do you gain - you personally - by having to deal with this? Seeing you defending it so adamently makes me better understand what SYSTEM said about it:

I find that the democratic way of determining the publicity of a program with votes is indeed hurting our reputation
...
TPFC used to have a very strict policy against bundleware or adware. That policy is no longer enforced in practice because programs like FreeFileSync can easily remain in the database even if they start to bundle crapware later on.
...
The result is that the visitors can't trust us as much as before.

Hey, personally I think that it's fine if the installer has bundled offers if our extraction instructions don't involve launching it. As Andrew said, bundling unwanted software is standard practice. However, in the case of portable software, the user usually doesn't run an installer anyway (the program is in a ZIP or 7z archive, or the installer can be extracted with Universal Extractor).

I found FreeFileSync an exceptional case because it looked like the user would have to run the installer to get a portable copy. "Run the installer and beware bundled offers" is not something that our extraction instructions normally contain.

[FileHandler]

Standard practice? Not my experience. Not with software on TPFC - irrespective of pure portable or some kind of install-procedure like .paf.exe - and also not my experience with GPL licenses in general.

But that's beside the point, anyway. My concern here are the occassional black sheep - who keep changing their packages, who offer perfectly safe portable installs one day, followed by a bundled version the next time, and really bad stuff yet another time. Not to mention other dubious practices.

As Andrew said, bundling unwanted software is standard practice.

And as Andrew also said, more than once he accidentally installed stuff this way. So did I, so did others. The exact reason for websites ending up on black lists, getting screened out and blocked by company policies.

You are SYSTEM, you define what becomes standard practice on TPFC. I apologize for quoting you wrongly. I was under the impression you regretted that the "... strict policy against bundleware or adware .... is no longer enforced in practice."

I still think you would better understand my objections if you had been affected personally, or read certain user reports, or heard what our helpdesk had to say to one particular hellishly malicious bundle that came with FFS and especially the way it was bundled.

Getting tired to fight this losing battle. Thanks for taking the time respond, though. No bad feelings or resentments, I respect your decision. Good Bye.

[SYSTEM]

Standard practice? Not my experience. Not with software on TPFC - irrespective of pure portable or some kind of install-procedure like .paf.exe - and also not my experience with GPL licenses in general.

Uh, I said that portable software users usually don't run into bundleware.

However, in the case of portable software, the user usually doesn't run an installer anyway (the program is in a ZIP or 7z archive, or the installer can be extracted with Universal Extractor).

"Run the installer and beware bundled offers" is not something that our extraction instructions normally contain.

----

You are SYSTEM, you define what becomes standard practice on TPFC.

I don't get what you're trying to say here.

If there is someone who defines "standard practice" here, it's Andrew, the founder of TPFC. I am just a member among others.

I apologize for quoting you wrongly. I was under the impression you regretted that the "... strict policy against bundleware or adware .... is no longer enforced in practice."

I merely pointed out that you misunderstood me.

I indeed regret that the "... strict policy against bundleware or adware .... is no longer enforced in practice." Moreover, when I didn't know that FreeFileSync installer can be extracted, I thought that FreeFileSync should be removed (or, more accurately, hidden) from our database.

However, when I said "strict", I didn't mean as strict as you thought.

As I said, bundleware is a much smaller problem in portable software because portable software isn't installed. There is no need to launch an installer, and no opportunity for a nonexistent installer to show crapware offers.

I find there isn't any problem as long as the visitor doesn't see any crapware offers. I still consider such a policy to be strict compared with almost any freeware website.

I still think you would better understand my objections if you had been affected personally, or read certain user reports, or heard what our helpdesk had to say to one particular hellishly malicious bundle that came with FFS and especially the way it was bundled.

Might be. I indeed haven't been affected personally. Maybe it's caused by my preference to use portable software; my ability to detect the offers and avoid crapware from being installed; or maybe just being lucky. Doesn't matter - I indeed don't know what it feels like to be hit by crapware, and don't want to know either.

Getting tired to fight this losing battle. Thanks for taking the time respond, though. No bad feelings or resentments, I respect your decision. Good Bye.

First, I don't consider this discussion to be a battle. Second, I don't make decisions here.

And in any case, this is a discussion that the TPFC community needed to have sooner or later.

[webfork]

IMHO, listing this adware threatens the good reputation of PortableFreeCollection ... I've been recommending this site to numerous friends and colleagues. None of them is what you'd call computer-savvy.

I do care about this site and it's reputation, but unfortunately we have an enormous number of programs and entries that we can't keep careful control over. It's a volunteer effort and we don't host the programs. Ultimately this project developed over time by a coalition of the willing and it represents -- not a grand vision of software excellence -- but small ways make freeware work the way we want.

Some effort is required of our visitors, as evidenced by those entries that require UniExtract and some odd config file edit. We don't provide a packaged, safe, and sanitized offer for visitors so our audience is necessarily a crowd that can deal with unchecking boxes. While that doesn't mean I'm in favor of adware, it might mean other destinations like Ninite and PortableApps might be better recommendations to non-technical friends.

I still think you would better understand my objections if you had been affected personally

I think ultimately this comes down to you being angry at FreeFileSync and wanting us to abandon it specifically because that project is run by people you think are dishonest . That's fine with me because, as SYSTEM said:

this is a discussion that the TPFC community needed to have sooner or later

[I am Baas]

@ I am Baas
Different opinions. You and Andrew wouldn't mind if this site drowns in software that comes bundled with crapware.

It is obvious you are clueless. Glad you said goodbye; you are a waste of time and not really interested in a discussion... take your campaign against FFS elsewhere.

[Andrew Lee]

I find that the democratic way of determining the publicity of a program with votes is indeed hurting our reputation.

TPFC used to have a very strict policy against bundleware or adware.

Just to clarify again, FFS would have passed the adware test in the good old days before voting was implemented because the app, when extracted, does not contain adware.

Conversely in the old days, there were apps without bundleware in the installer but, because they had ads in the app itself, were not added. I stand corrected if you could provide me with a counter-example.

If the new voting system had let through apps that serves ad in the program proper, then I think we can identify them and decide what to do with them.

Or, if the community feels that apps that bundle adware in their installer should not be included (even if the extracted app is clean and portable), then we can discuss that as well. But that would be a policy change.

So to use FFS as an example that the policy against adware was somehow relaxed due to the voting system is patently not true.

I hope you follow my logic.

[I am Baas]

I hope you follow my logic.

I do. Does that count?

[SYSTEM]

Just to clarify again, FFS would have passed the adware test in the good old days before voting was implemented because the app, when extracted, does not contain adware.

That I didn't know. I thought that it wouldn't have passed if running the installer was the only way to extract it.

I'm sorry for spreading misinformation.

Or, if the community feels that apps that bundle adware in their installer should not be included (even if the extracted app is clean and portable), then we can discuss that as well. But that would be a policy change.

For additions, the voting system handles the situation well. I expect a program with bundled offers to receive less votes, especially if the user has to run the installer to extract the program.

The only potential problem is updates. I think the best way to handle updates which add bundleware would be this:

1. Whoever would normally update the entry (usually Checker or me) makes the initial decision about updating or freezing the entry.
2. If someone disagrees with that decision, he/she can create a forum thread about it.
3. We try to reach a consensus or, if that fails, vote about it.
4. If the result is that the entry should be hidden (in case the old version is no longer available, usually because of redistribution restrictions), you hide it using the admin account.

[Andrew Lee]

That I didn't know. I thought that it wouldn't have passed if running the installer was the only way to extract it.

Just to clarify again, this was definitely not the case. We had quite a number of entries with extraction instructions of the form "Install, copy files, uninstall".

So I guess the real question is, if the installer has adware bundled (but with a checkbox for opting out), but the app itself is clean, do we change our policy to reject such entries?

Some of the other entries in the database with adware in their installers include:

- Youtube Download HD
- FileMenu Tools
- CoreTemp

and possibly more...

[FileHandler]

@SYSTEM and Andrews,
I mixed it up, your screen names got me confused. I don't see the usual admin-tag, makes no difference to what I posted, but apologies anyway.

Uh, I said that portable software users usually don't run into bundleware.
"Run the installer and beware bundled offers" is not something that our extraction instructions normally contain.

I understand. And that was my reason to interpret Andrews statement - (about bundling crapware being standard practice) - not as rhetorical or generic, but applicable to TPFC. And I object to it.

Again, UniversalExtractor stopped working for FFS after this "workaround" was posted on their forum. For an average user the only way is to run the installer. Which gives no hint about crapware, unless you are wary enough to choose "custom".

It is obvious you are clueless. Glad you said goodbye; you are a waste of time and not really interested in a discussion... take your campaign against FFS elsewhere.

Sorry for wasting your time, for me it's vice versa, you are the one not interested in a discussion, you caused my remark about fighting a futile battle. In your opinion there is nothing sneaky about FFS's behavior. It's clueless people like me who are not fit to handle it. For you it's simply a matter of changing the guidelines, the tools, 7-zip instead of UniversalExtraxtor - no big deal, smooth sailing.

My experience, however, has been different. I've always found the selection here to be easy and safe to handle. I don't recall another instance when the download got blocked with a suggestion to blacklist the address and a note to our admins.

Nor do I recall any other software that installed crapware despite opting out of it. To be fair, it was in the wake of a failed install, but when I complained about it on their forum, it turned out I was not the only one. When following up on it, some links had disappared, and a few days later my own posting was gone as well. That's when I followed another user's suggestion and complained to SourceForge about it. This kind of censoring hit a sensitive spot inside me.

I understand all this is of no relevance to you, but I signed up here to bring this to attention.

I think ultimately this comes down to you being angry at FreeFileSync and wanting us to abandon it specifically because that project is run by people you think are dishonest . That's fine with me because, as SYSTEM said:

this is a discussion that the TPFC community needed to have sooner or later

Yes, that's indeed my impression - that project is run by people I think are dishonest. The way the author discredits AV software, the big PayPal donation banner on the download page - not exactly indicative of bundled crapware. The "standard" way of bundling adware looks different, is much more open about it.

Having rules is good and necessary. But if TPFC has no other criteria, this may become a rat race of who out-smarts whom.

[FileHandler]

@Andrew,
Yes, I think I follow your logic why FFS would have passed the adware test anyway, voting system or not.
After trying the other examples you provided, it dawns on me that it's not as clear-cut as I thought.

Youtube Download HD
Was unable to download - address was blocked immediately, then upon forcing it, the file got quarantined by ESET. Supposedly contains spyware.

FileMenuTools
Direct download failed twice. Went to their website - and right on their download page it says:

"In order to keep this app for free and also to reward the effort spent in the application, the installer of this application uses OpenCandy. If you make a donation of at least 5€, then I will provide you ..."

Well ... that's fair, imo. They admit to it and state it openly up front. Doesn't hurt the reputation of other freeware and doesn't alienate people who donated previously. Doesn't shed a bad light on whoever recommended it.

CoreTemp
Zip-download, no install procedure, no crapware in sight

So I guess the real question is, if the installer has adware bundled (but with a checkbox for opting out), but the app itself is clean, do we change our policy to reject such entries?

How would such a policy treat cases like FFS? Their download packages are subject to change. Some of their installs are perfectly safe to run in default mode. Other times not.
To get the checkbox you must choose custom install, and there was at least one case, when clicking "custom" required or triggered something else that crashed - or seemed to crash - the installer and there was a dubious message of "Do you want to continue installing anyway". At which point the regular install took over and installed with no chance to opt out.