These days, giant dollar signs cloud their view. They really cared about their service and users. They were strict, and that’s how it should be.
FILEHIPPO CCLEANER SOFTWARE
Way back then, I used to actually trust all of the software they hosted to be tested for malware of any kind and safe for installation otherwise it would never make it on the site. Said, because back in the late 90s it was pretty damn useful (and trustworthy). If I did still use Windows… I would never use or recommend the site again. Disgusting… a huge company using their reputation-built powers and user base to shove shit down their own users’ throat. Now… it looks like that line of thinking will get users a browser hijacker and some adware.
FILEHIPPO CCLEANER INSTALL
I figured, it could be a good “search engine” to find programs of the type I want, and hell… if it’s on, it must be safe to run and install and malware-free. I haven’t regularly used for probably a decade or more, and I ditched Windows back in 2006, but even then… on my last days of using them I just went to to search for new programs and went to the official website from there. Either that, or just look it up on Google and get to the author’s page that way. Alternatively use one of the dozens of download services that people are likely to mention. Just go to if that’s what you’re used to, find a program, and click the link the the developer’s home page. It is such a shame that Windows users, these days, have no choice but to trust those who can’t be trusted. In the Windows 98 era I once trusted middlemen sites like CNET as a source of Windows software, but it didn’t take long for them to lose my trust.Īs the old saying goes: “Fool me once, shame on you. IMO, the only software one can truly trust, as an ordinary user, is FOSS software that is obtained directly from the source (it can be pre-compiled, but only if the corresponding source is also available, for vetting purposes). This particular trend of middlemen like CNET taking Windows FOSS software (which once was like a badge of trustworthiness) and effectively turning it into anti-user software (malware is perhaps too strong a term) is a grave concern. The problem, as I see it, in the Windows world where obfuscation of what one is being offered is the absolute norm, is that ordinary users have absolutely no way to know who they can trust.
In view of this, I note your comment: “However, you often have to re-think who you trust regarding downloads and programs.” If anything, I try to side with the best interests of ordinary people. However, you often have to re-think who you trust regarding downloads and programs. Please note that I’m not a “Windows” person so you may see the previous sentence in exactly that context – non-judging and purely technical. directly from the OS vendor or from a mirror of the initial provider of that program) – again, that’s also not a typical “Windows” thing. Obviously, installing things from source seem to be more secure, but they are not the typical thing to do on a “Windows” PC, or at least from a trusted source installing from precompiled binary packes (e. That’s definitely not what you expect when installing nmap!
FILEHIPPO CCLEANER PC
For example, if you get nmap (a well-known network exploration tool and port scanner, available on many OS platforms), you get some “extras” provided by the installer: On your PC it will install a “StartNow” toolbar, change your search engine to MICROS~1 “Bing”, and also change your home page to MICROS~1’s MSN. That article also mentions that downloads starting with a cnet_ prefix provide “extra functionality”. The reason why they changed them seems to be because of the users, or to be correct: for the users. Really sorry to see CNET change their procedures. The changes they’re making make me feel I’d better search again for a reliable, single-stop location for Windows downloads. I’ve used CNET as a trusted site for years to download software.
0 kommentar(er)
