Re: SourceForge seems to add adware to software (windows installer)

[<pl...@pi...>]

On 17/06/15 02:50, Tatsuro MATSUOKA wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>
>> From: sfeam
>> To: gnuplot-beta Tatsuro MATSUOKA
>> Cc:
>> Date: 2015/6/16, Tue 15:18
>> Subject: Re: SourceForge seems to add adware to software (windows installer)
>
>> Anyhow, I have added md5 checksums for the gnuplot windows installer binaries
>> on the download page.   Anyone worried about authenticity should confirm
>> the checksum values before running the installer.
>>
>>      Ethan
>
>
> This is information:
> Usual windows users are not familiar with checksum.
> Please see:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checksum
>
>
>
> On windows, Checksum software is not installed by default.
> (I have been used "md5sum" on msys or cygwin.)
>
> A command line tool "File Checksum Integrity Verifier" fciv.exe can be downloaded from
> Microsoft site
> https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=11533
>
>
> GUI based Checksum software working on windows can be found on the web.
> (There are many softwares for this purpose so that I cannot recommend which is the best.)
>
> Tatsuro
>


Most lambda Windoze users don't even know what a command line is , let 
alone a checksum. It's just click, click. double click; say OK to some 
EULA they never read then reboot Windoze.


Adding checksum information is probably a good step anyway, though.

Since SF's dishonest behaviour is motivated by creating a revenue 
source, it would seem that gnuplot will not be likely target, at least 
until they do this kind of crap to every download on their site, which I 
suppose is the logical conclusion.

Initially they will target only large circulation packages like GIMP. 
Gnuplot is fairly specialised and requires a fair degree of technical 
competence and has a fairly studious learning curve.
Those wanting banal graph plotting capabilities will use Exce.

However, since SF is clearly becoming unreliable and dishonest, it may 
be worth looking for an exit plan before it becomes a pressing problem, 
possibly with added constraints which do not currently exist.

It seems like it should be treated like shutting down a FaceBook 
account: you never say you want to close it but remove everything and 
retain your log-in rather than relinquishing access. In the case of SF 
update the readme every month or so, so as not to have it  picked up as 
'dormant' and re-appropriated.

Removing any references to SF as a download source will wither the 
traffic and make it progressively less and less attractive as an adware 
revenue source

Presenting this kind of thing as a "mirror" which is supposed to 
*reflect* exactly the same content as the source is again dishonest . 
Hopefully someone like Mozilla, who have the resources will sue their 
butt and get this practice stopped.


Peter.