Policy: linking to alternative wrappers

All suggestions about TPFC should be posted here. Discussions about changes to TPFC will also be carried out here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Policy: linking to alternative wrappers

#1 Post by JohnTHaller » Fri Apr 22, 2016 8:16 pm

[Moderator note: this thread was split from the System Explorer thread to address the issue of listing alternative wrappers (in this case PortableApps but applies to WinPenPack, Lupo, or others).]

---

When used in standard mode it is still "stealth". The PortableApps.com Launcher included doesn't have any code to do any local cleanup, it just adjusts paths within System Explorer's preferences to be portable as you move around and ensures the app files are in the proper place for our platform's backup/restore and such. So, the app is still natively portable on its own.

The entry should be updated with the instructions for Universal Extractor and adding an empty config.ini (thanks I am Baas) as the main entry with System Explorer Portable as an alternative. It shouldn't be switched to the PortableApps.com package. Although the base version is a bit more complicated to setup as billon points out, PFC keeps to the base version of the app whenever possible so that a given app isn't reliant on a third party like PortableApps.com or WinPenPack to package/update.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

3D1T0R
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:31 am

Re: SystemExplorer

#2 Post by 3D1T0R » Sat Apr 23, 2016 5:20 pm

Perhaps the part where System Explorer Portable is mentioned should point out that it's simpler to install portably, as it's packaged in a PortableApps.com Installer (paf.exe), but I agree with JohnTHaller. Where feasible, tracking the base app (or a portable version published by the original publishers), and mentioning wrapped alternative(s) in the description (preferably with links) is better, as otherwise the entry can't be updated to reflect new versions of the base app until the people who put out the wrapped version get around to updating it.
~ 3D1T0R

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4144
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: SystemExplorer

#3 Post by I am Baas » Sat Apr 23, 2016 7:55 pm

3D1T0R wrote:Perhaps the part where System Explorer Portable is mentioned should point out that it's simpler to install portably, as it's packaged in a PortableApps.com Installer (paf.exe), but I agree with JohnTHaller. Where feasible, tracking the base app (or a portable version published by the original publishers), and mentioning wrapped alternative(s) in the description (preferably with links) is better, as otherwise the entry can't be updated to reflect new versions of the base app until the people who put out the wrapped version get around to updating it.
Lay off.

SystemExplorer is natively portable. There are many entries in the DB that require a similar extraction procedure. There is no need to mention alternative versions that have no apparent advantage over the original one.
Bəəs 2.0

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 618
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: SystemExplorer

#4 Post by JohnTHaller » Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:54 am

I am Baas wrote:SystemExplorer is natively portable. There are many entries in the DB that require a similar extraction procedure. There is no need to mention alternative versions that have no apparent advantage over the original one.
Listing easier to use alternatives when a given app requires manual extraction with Universal Extractor is done on a few entries in the database already. I'd thought that was standard operating procedure if not official policy now.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

3D1T0R
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 12, 2016 11:31 am

Re: SystemExplorer

#5 Post by 3D1T0R » Sun Apr 24, 2016 5:28 pm

I am Baas wrote:Lay off.
Hah. As long as I'm not being rude (like you) or breaking some rule (if I am, please show me where the rule is posted), I have as much right to post my opinion on the matter being discussed as any other forum user. If you don't want to pay attention to it, you don't have to. ;-)
I am Baas wrote:There is no need to mention alternative versions that have no apparent advantage over the original one.
Being significantly easier to install is an apparent advantage (more so for some than others), especially for people who are new to the portable software scene.
Especially considering the fact that it's already mentioned in the description as an alternative, I see no reason to remove it now that the base app has become more difficult for new users to install portably. Mentioning that the PortableApps.com Package is easier to install would simply be a courtesy to new users.
~ 3D1T0R

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4144
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: SystemExplorer

#6 Post by I am Baas » Sun Apr 24, 2016 9:19 pm

JohnTHaller wrote:
I am Baas wrote:I'd thought that was standard operating procedure if not official policy now.
I would like to see a reference to that.

JohnTHaller wrote:Listing easier to use alternatives when a given app requires manual extraction with Universal Extractor is done on a few entries in the database already.
If I remember correctly, a consent from the community was needed to do that.
Last edited by I am Baas on Mon Apr 25, 2016 1:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bəəs 2.0

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4144
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: SystemExplorer

#7 Post by I am Baas » Sun Apr 24, 2016 9:28 pm

3D1T0R wrote:Being significantly easier to install is an apparent advantage (more so for some than others), especially for people who are new to the portable software scene.

Mentioning that the PortableApps.com Package is easier to install would simply be a courtesy to new users.
I do not think this is the purpose of this Website. Also, I do not intend to put the time and effort into TPFC and see visitors being referred to another platform.
Bəəs 2.0

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: SystemExplorer

#8 Post by SYSTEM » Sun Apr 24, 2016 11:02 pm

I am Baas wrote:
3D1T0R wrote:Being significantly easier to install is an apparent advantage (more so for some than others), especially for people who are new to the portable software scene.

Mentioning that the PortableApps.com Package is easier to install would simply be a courtesy to new users.
I do not think this is the purpose of this Website.
We're supposed to primarily consider what would be best for our visitors. There is no reason why we shouldn't give them options. If a visitor wants an easier way to extract System Explorer (or more importantly, automatic path adjustment when the drive letter changes), giving a link to System Explorer Portable makes their lives easier.
I am Baas wrote:Also, I do not intend to put the time and effort into TPFC and see visitors being referred to another platform.
As long as manual extraction is the suggested way, mentioning System Explorer Portable as an alternative isn't quite "referring to another platform".
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 12th playlist: November 1, 2018

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4144
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: SystemExplorer

#9 Post by I am Baas » Mon Apr 25, 2016 3:51 am

SYSTEM wrote:
I am Baas wrote:Also, I do not intend to put the time and effort into TPFC and see visitors being referred to another platform.
As long as manual extraction is the suggested way, mentioning System Explorer Portable as an alternative isn't quite "referring to another platform".
1. That is not what was suggested.
3D1T0R wrote:Perhaps the part where System Explorer Portable is mentioned should point out that it's simpler to install portably, as it's packaged in a PortableApps.com Installer (paf.exe)
2. A link pointing to another Website is a referral. Why do we need to advertise PA again?
Bəəs 2.0

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7924
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: SystemExplorer

#10 Post by webfork » Mon Apr 25, 2016 4:11 pm

JohnTHaller wrote:The entry should be updated with the instructions for Universal Extractor and adding an empty config.ini (thanks I am Baas) as the main entry with System Explorer Portable as an alternative. It shouldn't be switched to the PortableApps.com package. Although the base version is a bit more complicated to setup as billon points out, PFC keeps to the base version of the app whenever possible so that a given app isn't reliant on a third party like PortableApps.com or WinPenPack to package/update.
This is remarkably close to what I was going to say. More info on this topic.
I am Baas wrote:There is no need to mention alternative versions that have no apparent advantage over the original one.
This is a good policy question that I don't have a clear answer for.

Many programs have the additional advantage of extra features like stealth or path portability (FileZilla, AIMP) but we occasionally just list them for other programs (e.g. Greenfish, Miranda IM). Arguably there is a feature included in every PA version: ease-of-update via the PA Platform. Even still, I'm a little split on this: I really don't want someone going through and adding their versions to every entry (Haller has edit access and certainly could), but if whomever is writing the entry puts in the PA version, I'm certainly not going to take it out. On the other hand, we've always leaned on the side of more information for users rather than less. *shrug*
I am Baas wrote:A link pointing to another Website is a referral. Why do we need to advertise PA again?
I'll admit that the few times our site is mentioned on PA it's not in a terribly warm light. Still, I use their programs a lot so I see that fairly minor effort as a reasonable trade-off. This is similar to how I used their Platform and Songbird entries a lot so I gave back by rewriting the entries (hopefully improving them).
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 1783
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: SystemExplorer

#11 Post by SYSTEM » Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:42 pm

I am Baas wrote:
SYSTEM wrote:
I am Baas wrote:Also, I do not intend to put the time and effort into TPFC and see visitors being referred to another platform.
As long as manual extraction is the suggested way, mentioning System Explorer Portable as an alternative isn't quite "referring to another platform".
1. That is not what was suggested.
It is exactly what Haller suggested: http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... 552#p80552
I am Baas wrote:
3D1T0R wrote:Perhaps the part where System Explorer Portable is mentioned should point out that it's simpler to install portably, as it's packaged in a PortableApps.com Installer (paf.exe)
2. A link pointing to another Website is a referral.
OK, I back off on this one.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 12th playlist: November 1, 2018

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 7924
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: SystemExplorer

#12 Post by webfork » Sat May 07, 2016 12:47 pm

webfork wrote:
I am Baas wrote:There is no need to mention alternative versions that have no apparent advantage over the original one.
This is a good policy question that I don't have a clear answer for.
Getting back to the policy bit around listing PA websites, the short version is there's no policy against it. Whatever entry someone that has edit access wants to add it, they can do so. I discussed it a little off-list with Andrew and essentially his feeling is the same as SYSTEM's view, "We're supposed to primarily consider what would be best for our visitors. There is no reason why we shouldn't give them options."
Supporting Net Neutrality - BattleForTheNet | Why this matters | More from EFF.org

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2228
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

Re: System Explorer

#13 Post by Andrew Lee » Sat May 07, 2016 11:18 pm

Just to elaborate, I told webfork that I am puzzled why this issue always has the tendency to turn into territorial dispute, or some kind of "Who benefits more" war.

From my POV, I think we should ask whether TPFC users benefit in general from having this information. Personally, I find the information useful when I perform a search because it gives me options, as long as the information presented is not too intrusive. I don't think a one-liner in the description is intrusive.

I am even willing to institutionalize this by having a dedicated field for portable wrappers if separating it from the description helps at all.

Post Reply