Botg site admin 'The hash doesn't match because the filename doesn't match.' A fully descriptive answer is that they don't have a checksum for the bundled package but botg doesn't want to say this. ' Dangerously ignorant user. Not matching filename = the checksum is NOT for that file. Checksums can only be provided for the non-bundled packages, because they're static. Bundled installers are not.'

Filezilla Pro 3.28.0 – The Best FTP Solution. FileZilla Pro transfers files seamlesslybetween your machine and remote servers, using either FTP, FTPS or SFTP, or store files in the cloud on Amazon S3. Download FileZilla for Mac free. FileZilla is a fast FTP and SFTP client with a lot of features.

Dangerously ignorant person here what they are actually saying is that they have no way on earth to be sure what's even IN the bundled packages nor what it will do to the users computer. They have decided that tricking people into downloading malware is a reasonable alternative to charging money for their software or soliciting donations. Its truly amazing to me that installing windows software is still like this.

The obvious and immediate solution is to abandon vendors who behave like this. This is challenging because you have to track the reputation of each individual vendor and users have proven unable to even consistently download the software from the right page let alone judge individuals vendors track record.

The long term solution is to get off the platform. > The long term solution is to get off the platform. Running untrusted executables on any platform can be trouble. The problem is that by blaming the platform, people keep putting the onus on these OS's, distros, etc to build walls around carefully curated gardens.

Gotta take the good with the bad. Either you accept that people can run untrusted executables or you give up the flexibility to build/use/distribute untrusted executables yourself. Sadly it seems as devs grow into larger companies and prefer the latter, they forget their indie beginnings enabled by the former.

'What's $100?' 'Getting a cert is easy' they say. 'If you aren't building anything dangerous, why do you have a problem with curation?'

The same anti-freedom arguments are always there in the name of safety. If you downloaded untrusted Filezilla and executed it raw on any platform it could be an issue. If users required Filezilla to be distributed in the Windows app store, it could be less of an issue. One could argue the fact that installing Windows software is sometimes still like this is because of the lack of restrictions against it.

But as users keep complaining and devs stay silent, all platforms including Windows will continue to reduce liberty in the name of safety and you'll feel better. It sounds like you have a lot more experience with windows than other platforms. Many who have mainly used windows haven't experienced what typical software installation is like on systems like Linux. One hardly ever needs to run on trusted executables, for any reason. If you do, they come from one or two trusted sources, not one of hundreds of private websites.

That is just not how Linux software is distributed. It doesn't abridge freedom, either - if you want to run I trusted executables, nothing is trying to stop you, either.

Then, if you do have an executable to install from, the installation process is more likely to be one command run in a terminal then a GUI 'wizard' that takes 10 minutes, frequent attention and 20 clicks, and tries to convince/trick you to install a bunch of other software. My experience ranges across platforms which is why I call out this ridiculous bias when I see it, especially when it uses dumb examples like Filezilla to represent the whole. How to use my passport for mac. Look at the other options for Filezilla downloads. The default Mac one is the same bundled crap from the same source. The Linux one is from the same source too.

Of course I would be unreasonable to criticize the other platforms if the forum post was about those instead. > One hardly ever needs to run on trusted executables, for any reason. If you do, they come from one or two trusted sources, not one of hundreds of private websites That's just not true if you want up to date software. I can list a ton of software to the contrary and lots of installing that includes just extracting tarballs, or installing their deb/rpm you download, or if they use the distro package manager, they just have you add their server and cert. > GUI 'wizard' that takes 10 minutes, frequent attention and 20 clicks Well if you're just gonna give false impressions with hyperbole, a rational discussion can't be had. Regardless, the issues with installation are primarily the choice of the devs, not the OS. These days they more look like the installation of Nodejs, Go, PgAdmin, VSCode, etc (i.e.