The author didn't explain what the actual impact was on them. They stopped at "security implications" because the only reasonable outcome that would obviate this "Warning to All Users" would be to provide the latest version for free. No, it doesn't make sense to provide an insecure version. No, it doesn't make sense to patch such an old version. The other reasonable outcome is the actual outcome - that FileZilla doesn't let them download it, but if for some reason they backed it up (which is cool) and want to use it (which is odd), they can still use it.
Because what you paid for is the software on physical media. Why would any publisher just hand out things for free that they otherwise charge for because you claim you lost the item. Back in the days of physical software, it used to be common to buy and sell used software. The difference between "I lost it, send me a new one" and "I sold it, send me a new one" is a simple lie, that more people than you think would be happy to tell a faceless corpo. Would it be nice if they issued a new copy that worked with the old key? Yes, but there is no moral argument for requiring it.
If I lose a book, I wouldn't expect the publisher to send me a new one. If I buy a physical copy of a Nintendo game and lose the cartridge, there is no reason to expect Nintendo to send me a new one. Why would MS word be different?
The comment that started the thread was : I have installation media for MS Office 2010 in my desk drawer. If I lose the disc, I wouldn't expect Microsoft to replace it for me.
We are talking about physical media to compare and contrast the differing expectations around responsibility for backing up a digital download (what the linked complaint was about), and physical install media (what this thread is about).
> I'm pretty sure the business was very clear that I'm only buying the license though.
Microsoft in 2010 was very clear that your were buying physical install media for Office 2010 along with your license. They did this by making the physical install media part of the license purchase transaction.
>Yes, but there is no moral argument for requiring it.
Are you sure you didn't butcher a word here? Yes, Firezilla might be in the clear legally if they told the OP to pound sand, but that's not the same thing as having no "moral argument". In most common law jurisdictions, it's perfectly legal to walk past a drowning child and refuse to save him, even if you'll incur marginal cost (eg. 10 min of your time). However that's not you wouldn't say "there's no moral argument for requiring it"
Similar logic applies here, which is that it costs next to nothing for them to provide downloads to existing owners, because they presumably have the digital distribution infrastructure for new sales. It doesn't make sense for a book publisher to send you new copies after your dog ate your book because postage, ink and paper costs money, and if for whatever reason they have a e-book version, it'll be a pain to authenticate that they actually bought the physical book. None of those excuses work for digital downloads.
Comparing a company that refuses to support a purchase with an expired support term to refusing to save the life of a child? I would argue that refusing to stop the death of a child is not in any way comparable to refusing to go above and beyond on a $13 sale from years ago.
> Similar logic applies here, which is that it costs next to nothing for them to provide downloads to existing owners, because they presumably have the digital distribution infrastructure for new sales.
In any case, hosting archival versions is not free, it incurs a cost, just like printing, mailing, and postage does for a hard copy of a book. The cost is possibly less, but not 0.
If you think there is a threshold for when a company should cover the costs of negligent loss versus not covering those costs, what is it? Why is the cost of shipping a replacement cost of a physical media above that cost, and the cost of hosting a server in perpetuity below that cost?
New sales are for different versions than what he purchased. Filezilla sells a perpetual license with updates for a year. They just keep the most up to date version on the download server and cut off your access after a year.
In order to implement what you are suggesting they would have to build an entire application that knows when your support ended and serve the specific build that you are licensed for, or provide that ability to their CS team. The reality is that the cost of developing and maintaining that minimal functionality are far from free, probably not too dissimilar from the cost of replacing physical copies of books at a unit level, tbh.
While, yes, it would be generous for Filezilla to provide perpetual support and downloads, that is not what was offered or purchased. They provided software, they supported it for a year, they even allow him to use their customer support resources outside of that time.
Under what moral system is there an imperative to do something that is beyond what you originally agreed to in an anonymous purchase?
At the end of the day, all this spilled ink is about a ~$13 license. Sorry, but a years old $13 purchase carries precisely no implied moral imperative for perpetual availability.
>If you think there is a threshold for when a company should cover the costs of negligent loss versus not covering those costs, what is it? Why is the cost of shipping a replacement cost of a physical media above that cost, and the cost of hosting a server in perpetuity below that cost?
To paraphrase your words, "I would argue that refusing to offer 0.09 cents[1] (that's right, less than 1 cent) worth of bandwidth for legacy downloads not in any way comparable to spending $5 (at least) of postage to mail a book"
[1] 9 cents/GB charged by AWS for egress. Actual cost is likely far lower.
Maintaining a perpetual archive for the convenience of those that don't do backups is not part of a typical licensing agreement. It is a nice thing to do, but unless a perpetually accessible hosted file service is what you bought, it is reasonable for the company to stop hosting copies of software that they no longer sell.
Some people might believe differently, and some companies might do it out of the goodness of their hearts (or because they signed up for a permanent liability for hosting)
I absolutely conceded that it is not legally required.
I just don't want to do business with people who think that's an ethical way to do things. The hosting excuse is pathetic. Learn to do your job and it isn't something you need to think about more than once every half decade.
I had to maintain a full build artifact history of my old app. It "just worked" for years and years without thinking twice, and cost a handful of dollars a month for a few TB of build artifacts.
For most apps that aren't continual delivery, it's way fewer artifacts to handle so way less data...a couple dollars a month at most.
Really, what excuse do you have for that other than screwing people who previously trusted you enough to do business with you?
> Really, what excuse do you have for that other than screwing people who previously trusted you enough to do business with you?
The license itself is ~$13 for a perpetual license and a year of support and updates. What expectation should I have that because I spent $13 years ago that the company will support me after my one year support window expires? Presumably, everyone on here knows supporting software isn't free. As you pointed out yourself, the hosting costs aren't free. At a certain point, paying a few dollars per month to host a decade old version of a $13 product that gets downloaded once a year actually is a problem.
Just out of curiosity, what is your plan to host the old versions of your app until 2060, say? Will you setup all that infrastructure again if your current provider goes down? Or is there a time limit that is reasonable to no longer offer downloads for, maybe...
Who exactly is getting screwed by being charged $13 to replace an old version of software with a new version because the client failed to do a backup before nuking an HD for an OS install.
No one is being screwed. This is just one party thinking that they are entitled to perpetual support for a perpetual license, and the other party saying that the license is perpetual and the support ends at 1 year.
> At a certain point, paying a few dollars per month to host a decade old version of a $13 product that gets downloaded once a year actually is a problem.
The few dollars was talking about total cost, not per-version cost.
If we're talking about a single version of filezilla that rarely gets downloaded, the hosting cost is somewhere below a penny per month, possibly actual zero. And they might need to store 25 archival versions total? It's nothing.
> the expectation is that the link keeps working if the company is in business.
It is hard to keep things running when you're changing and experimenting. It's why Google shutters businesses it finds are not growing - they're a maintenance burden and suck up resources, dragging down other efforts. And that's for a company with near-infinite resources. Imagine sole proprietorships.
Someone has to care and devote time and attention to keep it there. At the expense of other opportunities.
Just because Tim Berners-Lee said "cool URIs don't change" doesn't mean it's practical. Almost everything is temporary and dies. It's okay. Not much in life has permanence.
Unreasonable and unrealistic expectation. You pay for a copy, you get a copy. Deal is over unless you have problem with the product in that it doesn't work as advertised or malfunctions.
I'm afraid I don't really understand what the author is angry about here.