The 'wizard' does not require a steady 10 minutes of attention, but I don't think 20 clicks is an exaggeration. GUI software is more difficult to automate and presents information in a way that's difficult to absorb at a glance, for me. I'm familiar with the typical Windows apps install process, and I do indeed warrant that that is a realistic comparison. I don't think the comparison of the 'wizard' to installing from apt or similar is hyperbole. Apt likely protects you from exactly what's being discussed here, as well as from the need to compile from source. Having the latest version isn't critical, and if it was, I would compile from source. I certainly would use my package manager to install this. That this is not clear and you think 10 minute wizards with 20 clicks is normal makes it seem like you are not familiar with the platforms you talk about. minimal MSI's or just zip extracts) than complicated adware of yore. These days they more look like the installation of Nodejs, Go, PgAdmin, VSCode, etc (i.e. Regardless, the issues with installation are primarily the choice of the devs, not the OS.

Well if you're just gonna give false impressions with hyperbole, a rational discussion can't be had. > GUI 'wizard' that takes 10 minutes, frequent attention and 20 clicks 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. That's just not true if you want up to date software. If you do, they come from one or two trusted sources, not one of hundreds of private websites > One hardly ever needs to run on trusted executables, for any reason. Of course I would be unreasonable to criticize the other platforms if the forum post was about those instead. The Linux one is from the same source too. The default Mac one is the same bundled crap from the same source.

Look at the other options for Filezilla downloads. 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. 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. One could argue the fact that installing Windows software is sometimes still like this is because of the lack of restrictions against it. If users required Filezilla to be distributed in the Windows app store, it could be less of an issue. If you downloaded untrusted Filezilla and executed it raw on any platform it could be an issue. The same anti-freedom arguments are always there in the name of safety. 'If you aren't building anything dangerous, why do you have a problem with curation?' they say. Sadly it seems as devs grow into larger companies and prefer the latter, they forget their indie beginnings enabled by the former. Either you accept that people can run untrusted executables or you give up the flexibility to build/use/distribute untrusted executables yourself. 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. Running untrusted executables on any platform can be trouble. > The long term solution is to get off the platform. The long term solution is to get off the platform. 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 obvious and immediate solution is to abandon vendors who behave like this. Its truly amazing to me that installing windows software is still like this. They have decided that tricking people into downloading malware is a reasonable alternative to charging money for their software or soliciting donations. Bundled installers are not.'ĭangerously 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.

Checksums can only be provided for the non-bundled packages, because they're static. Not matching filename = the checksum is NOT for that file. 'The hash doesn't match because the filename doesn't match.'Ī fully descriptive answer is that they don't have a checksum for the bundled package but botg doesn't want to say this.

Filezilla malware warning