Problem downloading flashsfv2.0f.zip

Fusion · 10-28-2001, 04:47 PM

Could somebody please verify that the link for flashsfv2.0f.zip is indeed valid? I just tried to get it and got a big handfull of nothingness.

bigstar · 10-28-2001, 09:09 PM

I downloaded the zip and it tested good.

Fusion · 10-29-2001, 12:30 AM

Hrmph, I keep getting a stale link, I feel SOOO left out. <sniff>

Fused · 10-29-2001, 03:51 AM

Don't use a download manager. Some kind of anti-link script on here that screws up the download if youre usign FlashGet/getRight/DAP/etc.

bigstar · 10-29-2001, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fused
Don't use a download manager. Some kind of anti-link script on here that screws up the download if youre usign FlashGet/getRight/DAP/etc.

Why/How doesn't it work?

We don't allow 3rd party direct linking, as you download directly from our website, it should work no matter what client you use.

Fusion · 10-29-2001, 10:26 AM

Hrmph, seems Fused has a point. I was using GetRight at the time, and it downloaded like 216 bytes (the web-page? the url?) then reset, causing a stall in the end. Very strange.

Fused · 10-29-2001, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bigstar
We don't allow 3rd party direct linking

And a download manager IS 3rd party. It's just like opening up a different application and pasting in the download URL, the httpd has no idea if youre on the site in IE when it's another program entirely thats accessing the server.

Download managers have always screwed up downloads here.

Fusion · 10-29-2001, 03:09 PM

So the authors of the fxp program deny fxp transfers? Ain't that cute. <g>

Btw, this web-site does, but sshhh.. don't tell 'em....

MxxCon · 10-29-2001, 04:36 PM

what bigstar means is posting link on another website and trying to d/l by clicking on that link will not work.
it has nothing to do with download managers. they should work without a problem..
but anyway, 300k file doesn't really need download manager

Fusion · 10-29-2001, 04:53 PM

The size of the file is beside the point, MxxCon. I daresay more than 90% of todays users browsing web-sites have a download-manager or other, in part because they use a MS OS and/or are on a dialup. That I happened to do it with that file was a pure fluke, as I don't generally fit in that demographic.

If your website does indeed break on such 3rd-party access, you should at the very least post that in big easy-to-read letters on the download page(s), if nothing else, it's considered common courtesy and a smart move vs customer relations.

Fused · 10-29-2001, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MxxCon
what bigstar means is posting link on another website and trying to d/l by clicking on that link will not work.

I know exactly what he means. And thats exactly what i'm saying.

Whether it's on another website, or with a download manager, the HTTPD on the server has no way of knowing if you're at flashfxp.com or not.

With a downlaod manager it basically sees you as coming from a different place other than flashfxp.com, just as if youw ere trying to download from another webpage.

Understand?

bigstar · 10-29-2001, 11:30 PM

GetRight will work provided you have it configured to calculate the referer based on the open web browser page.

This option is located in Advanced / Protocols.

If the referer does not match flashfxp.com then it will be rejected.

Fusion · 10-30-2001, 01:10 AM

Okay, bigstar, I'll buy that. However, my main point in my last post has yet to be addressed: What you just pointed out, is nowhere to be seen on flashfxp.com, and that's bad for business. If downloads from the web-site (not Tucows) requires special configuration, extra care could and should be taken to ensure that this is clear as day to the end-user. I don't consider myself an average user, yet I didn't have an inkling that was the case; Granted, I didn't much care, but that's no excuse. It's the web-site's "responsibility" to ensure that most users is able to make full use of it, or risk that the users as well as potential users seek elsewhere.

Note also that Tucows doesn't have any such problems, but then they go that extra mile (or 1.6km; for the Euros).

bigstar · 10-30-2001, 01:46 AM

Umm we're talking about freeware here, how exactly is that bad for business? My websites have limited bandwidth resources and once those resources are used up I am charged $3.50 per gigabyte. If anything it would save me money by elminating the freeware section.

I'm a bit confused as to why you think this is such a big deal, It is a common practice to block 3rd party direct linking. After all I am the one paying for the bandwidth.

I have no problem with people using download managers but I don't think it's my responsiblity to explain to them how to configure it to work with my site.

Tucows is great. If it wasn't for them FlashFXP would no longer be shareware. With over 100k downloads a month there is no way I could afford to host the download much longer.

Fusion · 10-30-2001, 02:06 AM

Don't get me wrong, it's no big deal to me personally, I do however think the common user would react to it. Me, I just find it amusing that you essentially block fxp transfers.

That said, it can't be overlooked that, while freeware, these little sparkles of ingeniouity is helping promote the software that's not free.