Download.com Now Wraps Downloads In Bloatware 397
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.'"
Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:5, Informative)
More and more download sites are doing this.
Hell, even reputable companies are doing this. I see it all the time. We wind up cleaning off "Ask Toolbar" and other sorts of shitty crapware all the time, and it wandered in as a tagalong with Adobe Reader and Java updates!
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:5, Funny)
OK, so that's Adobe and Oracle... what were the reputable companies doing this?
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:4, Funny)
Well, Google does it with their toolbar for IE, Google Desktop Search and Chrome. I think most slashdotters think Google as somewhat reputable company.
Well thats just rude. How dare Google install a toolbar when I download the Google Toolbar for IE!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Um its not the toolbar he is complaining about its the attempt to install google desktop search and chrome when you try to install it.
Re: (Score:2)
I`d side with you about apple not being a reputable company, as they also keep bundling Quicktime with other downloads (Safari ? iTunes ?). Anyway..
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:4, Insightful)
I`d side with you about apple not being a reputable company, as they also keep bundling Quicktime with other downloads (Safari ? iTunes ?). Anyway..
The default link for Safari for Windows [apple.com] does not include QuickTime, although you can optionally click a button and choose to receive it. iTunes comes with QuickTime... mostly because it requires QuickTime. PS: iTunes also comes with Bonjour for Windows... mostly because it uses Bonjour.
On the Mac, of course, QuickTime, iTunes and Safari are already pre-installed.
Re: (Score:3)
iTunes comes with QuickTime... mostly because it requires QuickTime. PS: iTunes also comes with Bonjour for Windows... mostly because it uses Bonjour.
I think I heard that same argument before, only it was about Windows and Internet Explorer. I'm not sure how it could be anything but abusive to make me install Quicktime if I want to do a backup of an iPhone.
First came iTunes for music. Then iTunes for video. Then the iTunes store for music, which used DRM at the time which required QuickTime. Then came video, which did (and still does) require QuickTime and DRM. Somewhere way after that QuickTime requirement was established, they released a phone. Which requires iTunes to backup and activate. But soon won't require iTunes to activate or backup. But in the mean time, iTunes has a strong, strong need for QuickTime. Even if that one little module you seem most in
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The Yahoo! toolbar used to come with Java, did they change that recently?? Also, I never saw anything come in with a Reader auto-update, so I wonder if you're downloading via the website.
Someone needs to write a very simple, no-frills application that removes crapware. Not malware, just crapware. You know, similar to Spybot, or whatever. Or perhaps write something that intercepts the installers, and pretends like they succeeded. Then someone can write a GPO to push it onto domain members at corporations, an
Re: (Score:3)
The Yahoo! toolbar used to come with Java
In Soviet Russia, Java comes with Yahoo toolbar!
Oh wait, and in the US too.
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:4, Funny)
You think so, but if you take TTY1 out of full screen mode, youll see yahoo toolbar sitting there right above your shell prompt.
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:5, Insightful)
So far with Java I have seen Ask Toolbar, Bing Toolbar, and one other (I forget what). Adobe tends to push Ask Toolbar and Google Toolbar.
What really gets me about the Bing Toolbar is that on any computer with IE8 or IE9, Bing is already the fucking default search engine for the search box anyways. So why the fuck does MS have to push a goddamn toolbar everywhere?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Bing toolbar also tracks the URLs you enter in the address bar rather than just your searches. That was clearly stated in the EULA you didn't bother to read. They now get all your urls, not just your search requests.
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:5, Interesting)
I cleaned the Ask toolbar off one of my friends computers after it broke the new tab shortcut and menu item in Firefox. Yeah. "...huh?" The only way to get a new tab was to drag something into the tab bar or open a link in a new tab.
(found that Ask was the culprit by disabling extensions one at a time until the Ctrl-T shortcut started working again)
Oh well, nothing of value was lost. I probably would have cleaned it off anyway, but I wanted to know why the shortcut was broken. And it actually surprised me that it was so poorly written that it broke stuff like that.
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope you're being sarcastic.
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:4, Funny)
No, and he'll be done reviewing Netscape Navigator 4.0 and installing it next week.
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:4, Funny)
I wish I'd gotten that far; I'm still not even halfway through the gcc source. :P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Whoa. Your post only appears when I wear polarized glasses.
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:5, Informative)
And, snarky sarcasm aside, plenty of projects host the binary builds alongside them as well.
You just have to actually look in the files "directory" of the project, instead of just going with the "latest" link somewhere near the top of the page.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, maybe you shouldn't spend so much time blocking banner ads? Were you really that surprised that it will just move sites to use other ways to make money with advertisements, or move them to pay model?
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes I'd rather that my money and brainspace goes only to the companies whose products I wish to use. I don't want a million me-too widget bandwagon jumpers getting a few cents when I have no choice in the matter and no interest in their products. But I guess that's advertising... At least I can still turn off my TV in the middle of an advertisement.
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:5, Insightful)
At least I can still turn off my TV in the middle of an advertisement.
And TV ads don't eat into your download cap and infect your TV with malware.
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:5, Insightful)
* Yet.
Lots of newer TVs and Blu-ray players now have Java... it's only a matter of time, I think.
Scary thought!
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking that, but so long as ads are just video and not Java applets, and so long as the TV companies charge a shedload of money so there are far fewer people producing them, it's not likely to be an issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Remember how banner advertisements used to only be JPEGs and sometimes-animated GIFs? Then they started using plugins, eventually settling on SWFs, Java and later on JavaScript.
I foresee the same thing happening on set-top boxes. They already have Java content on Blu-Ray discs. I'm pretty sure digital cable boxes do something similar with these "enhanced content" options for shows. I've never used that feature, so it's just speculation on my part, but the Java logo is still printed on the box.
You'd think th
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:4, Funny)
Press "Power" on your remote now to install the "MyCleanTV" app!
Re: (Score:2)
that only makes sense if people who block banners would, otherwise, be the same people to click on them.
I've been browsing the web since around 1997, and blocking banners since about 2007. I can confidently say that in those 10 years with banners I probably only clicked 3-5 banners.
Obviously I should assume my personal experience is representative of banner-blockers as a whole, but do believe I represent a majority of us. Why? I think if people are tech-savvy enough to block banner ads they are also savv
Re: (Score:3)
I hosts-blocked most ad sites on my girlfriend's computer when she started complaining about the web sites she uses being so slow; most of the time was spent waiting for some ad site or some tracking site like Google analytics.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to click on the banners. Most sites are being paid by impressions, not clicks.
But advertisers will eventually smarten up and realise that paying for impressions is pointless.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care. Advertising is not the way to recover your costs. Continuing to insist upon it just perpetuates the "arms race."
You implement advertising method X, and I block it until you implement method Y, and I block that, ad nauseam and beyond.
Support your sites with hard income. Don't have the hard income to spare? Ask for donations or don't host the site. Part of this is that the costs for bandwidth and hosting is way out of proportion - it's fine for the big guys, but screws the little guys. This is d
shifting the chump (Score:3)
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 f
Re:Wow, when you can't trust CNET (Score:5, Informative)
FileHippo Update Checker (Score:2)
FileHippo also has an update checker:
http://www.filehippo.com/updatechecker/ [filehippo.com]
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.
No, it's CBS (Score:5, Informative)
c|net is long gone, they are now CBS Interactive.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I second the MajorGeeks [majorgeeks.com] suggestion. They have a lot of very useful utilities and such, even applications that are old or archived. Then they present you with a main link or alternative links (sometimes to third parties). Pages are clean, utilities are ranked, screenshots (if any) are linked. It's just a nice site.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh... I am all for companies making money and profit. However sites such as download.com were suppose to be sites we could trust the downloads from. Trust on the internet is a hard thing to get, and to toss it away like that is a great disservice to itself.
Re: (Score:2)
Most useful software can be found at Oldversion [oldversion.com].
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Yeah, same here...I discovered this yesterday when I was trying to find a good freeware CD/DVD burning program. I thought maybe it was just that particular piece of software, as the other stuff looked like crap. Guess not. That's too damn bad, I used to use Cnet quite a bit back in the day, but they've really sold out it seems...
Re: (Score:3)
I've found that InfraRecorder is pretty good, and its FOSS. Get it from http://infrarecorder.org/ [infrarecorder.org], not CNet.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Get a Linux distro like Ubuntu, if you can live without windows. Their package repository contains gigabytes of software, with practically perfect install and uninstall, and totally malware-risk-free.
This is one of the main reasons I run Linux instead of Windows.
Sourceforge is no alternative (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That's true, but if you want to avoid the "toolbar" bullshit there's no safe haven. Heck, when I'm not using SF and something is hosted independently there's no shortage of ads with "download" buttons designed to fool the end user.
Its just dirty. This is one of the last nails in the non-controlled/non-app store coffin. Oh well, I think if done right, this is a change that'll help people.
Re: (Score:2)
'bullshit'? I understand that people like to have their software free (mostly as in beer, the speech tends to be an added bonus), but calling the desire for the developer to get a minor kickback from the occasional toolbar install/default homepage switch/etc. 'bullshit' is a bit silly as long as it's optional.
Re: (Score:2)
Its bullshit because most of these toolbars cause browser instability (lets ignore the massive privacy issues). So what these developers are proposing is that I can have their application, but at the cost of my browser running like shit going forward. I don't consider damaging an unrelated piece of software on my machine a reasonable exchange.
Not to mention, they can sell ads to make money. Ads on the webpage that hosts the installer as well as in app ads. Its not toolbars or being broke. Lets stop pretendi
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sourceforge is no alternative (Score:5, Informative)
That's not sourceforge's fault any more than getting an infected crack from TPB would be TPB's fault. Sourceforge just hosts whatever the hell you upload.
Re: (Score:2)
Sourceforge just hosts whatever the hell you upload.
Well, that's part of the problem, isn't it? People need a place where they can go to download software with at least a modicum of confidence that they're not getting malware or bloatware. That's the appeal of walled gardens like Apple's app store. If all the more open download sites continue to pulls stunts like CNET, or to just take a "hand-offs" approach like Sourceforge, the walled gardens are going to look more and more appealing. I'd hate to think that my mom may ask me one day "Where can I go to get t
Re: (Score:3)
Eh? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to download (known good) Windows freeware from them sometimes, but rarely. Probably been to their site less than once per year over the last decade.
Re: (Score:2)
I have likely downloaded things from them in the past year, but I hardly notice whether it's download.com, tucows.com, or anonymous-er-we-mean-trusted-source.com.
The cloud isn't just an API, any more.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't figured out why people use these big, questionable hosting sites. Why not just go to the source?
http://www.avira.com/en/free-download-avira-antivir-personal [avira.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of times the "source" hosts their downloads on these type sites.
No Worries, Stopped using CNET a while ago (Score:2)
gotta go oldschool then (Score:2)
Driving users to the App Store (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Damn, racists are everywhere.
Of Course (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention all the Linux distributions which have had something very similar to an app store for, what, more than a decade? Except that they have much more sane policies regarding inclusion in the "app store" and extending the app store with secondary repositories.
Re:Driving users to the App Store (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
I've been a fan of a collection of app stores since I moved to Debian 2.2, 11 years ago, nice to see the non-oss world catching up.
Re:Driving users to the App Store (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of shareware sites. (Score:2)
Just move to another, or go to sourceforge. Who needs this crap?
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Right under the main "Download Now" button is the direct HTTP download URL which registered CNET members can access.
So I need to register with them to bypass their installer? Oh great... :(
Re: (Score:2)
Non-idiots and people who register on CNET sites are mutually exclusive.
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot the more relevant bit:
5. Can I opt out of the CNET Download.com Installer?
Yes. 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.
Download.com (Score:2)
Who actually downloads stuff from download.com anymore?
God Dammit (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Use Ninite. http://ninite.com/
Adware-free bulk installer. Pick the apps you want, download one installer, start it, come back later with everything installed.
Premium? (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Now thats funny :)
Yay an installer for the installers! (Score:2)
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 sel
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, shared DLLs save a bit of memory, but in this day and age, that's not an issue anymore.
Yes, this is a brilliant idea. Instead of having one copy of foobar.dll on your system which can be updated when there's a security fix, you now have fifty different versions of foobar.dll all over the system in different installation directories, so some programs using it will be safe and others will have major security holes and some will work if you replace the DLL with the new one and some will break.
Ah, the joy of Windows and its 'install anything anywhere, I don't care' philosophy.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure for the *really* important DLLs, but those are going to be on Windows by default for everyone. Yeah keep a library of those.
Instead the reality is that everyone has their own pet DLLs which they just have to infect the system with. You end up with a million DLLs and bits of preferences (which are usually duplicated beyond belief) in another thousand places. But by all means, have fun with your backup, and trying to make each program independent without going to a dozen different places to find the exac
Re: (Score:2)
Sure for the *really* important DLLs, but those are going to be on Windows by default for everyone.
No, for any DLL that's common between applications. For example, a few years back there was some important security hole in zlib, and I found about a dozen different installations of zlib.dll on my Windows PC; either I replaced them and hope the application still worked, or lived with a known security hole.
If there was one zlib.dll on the system with a sensible versioning methodology, then updating it once would have fixed them all and the versioning would ensure that they didn't break.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay maybe at a push for something like that if you're paranoid.
However, 99.9999% of software publishers don't make anything nearly on that scale of generality. For the rest, we should keep our own self-contained folder thank you very much.
Hasbeens always pull this crap? (Score:3)
A Software Author's Perspective (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:A Software Author's Perspective (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A Software Author's Perspective (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
FYI, you might want to check for your software on Brothersoft.com as well - they also do this, but they don't require you to submit your software.
Use cnet to find, download from developer site. (Score:3)
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 solution is (Score:3)
Now that I've made the world a better place on a Monday, what should I do?
Um... (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
GNU GPLv2:
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
...
Seems pretty clear to me that, yes, you do. Is the wrapper executable? Is it based on a GNU GPL'd source? You'd have a hard time arguing that section 3 doesn't apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
An installer which simply copies files from an archive to a folder on the computer (and maybe sets up some registry entries, etc) is a distinct program from the program which gets thus installed.
Just because the 'wrapper' is used to make the copy, doesn't make the wrapper part of the GPL program, or the GPL program part of the wrapper.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd have a hard time arguing that an installer wrapper is based on the software it's installing.
Re:So, CNet's installer is now open source? (Score:4, Informative)
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.