This submission is notable is because it's free and polished.
--- Edit ---
The child comment below is 100% correct.
It also pulls piles of stuff from cdn.jsdelivr.net and can't function without it. That's no bueno.
No, it's not free. Every time you load up the page to view your own files with files.gallery, a big honkin' pop-up shows up instructing you to buy a $40 license for additional features:
Purchase a license [$39] to unlock features and support dev! - Remove this popup - Upload - Download folder - Code and text editor - Create new file - Create new folder - Rename - Delete - Duplicate file - Dedicated support - Multi-user, panorama and much more coming soon! [payment button]
The files.gallery website only hints at this restriction at the very bottom of the page in the "License" section, which devs would expect to mean an OSS license: "Files is free to use with basic features. To remove the license-popup and unlock additional features, you may purchase a license [$39] from within the app."
Now if you look at the rest of the landing page you can see it very carefully does not mention the ability to use basic file browsing features so that it's not technically a lie to present a tool that can "browse files and folders without complicated installations" that doesn't allow you to do anything more than download your own files without opening your wallet.
The dev is just another hustler.
> The dev is just another hustler.
But this was really uncalled for even if this does look kinda deceiving and dark-pattern-ish.
But does this mean devaluing their work by calling them "just another hustler"? I believe this isn't necessary.
And sadly it totally devalues your comment for me.
More upfront than under the "License" section on the landing page?
Are you working for free or do you ask for a salary from your employer?
> Files is free to use with basic features. To remove the license-popup and unlock additional features, you may purchase a license [$39] from within the app.