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