DAA2ISO

[guinness]

Added To TPFC: http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=1541

[M@tty]

Should this really have been added? It is a command-line application. Although it can be used without command-line switches, I hardly think popping up an Open Files dialog constitutes a GUI.

[guinness]

Normally I'm opposed to 'Console' based, .NET and Java applications pertaining to be portable. But because of the useful element I thought it deserved a chance in the database.

From FAQ.

Why don't you accept command-line apps?
Firstly, I am not too much of a command-line guy. I hate remembering the switches. Since this is a personal hobby, I prefer to review apps that interests me.

Secondly, command-line apps are pretty much always portable, so there is not much point listing them. There are plenty of sites out there that do that already.

[M@tty]

Hi guinness,

because of the useful element I thought it deserved a chance in the database.

This is where I disagree, but I'm not sure what stance Andrew Lee would take. Based on what the FAQ says ("command-line apps are pretty much always portable, so there is not much point listing them") I think he would agree with me.

The reason I disagree is because, well most applications are written to be useful. They would be pretty pointless if not. So if we start allowing console applications just because they are useful, then, really we have to add every (well, most - some applications really are useless) console application ever written.

[guinness]

So if the application had a GUI of some kind you wouldn't be against the application? I presume the author has done this to keep the file size as minimum as possible. If the application required command line parametres, I wouldn't have have posted to the database.

I think it needs to be made more clear what is acceptable and not. Are Console based applications that can run without commandline parameters acceptable in the database? Surely a GUI in this example would only require a window with a button that says "Select DAA file."

[M@tty]

So if the application had a GUI of some kind you wouldn't be against the application?

If the application had a proper GUI then it wouldn't be a console application and therefore my previous point would be void. I have no issue with the functionality of this piece of software, and my problem is not with this particular application but with console applications in general. I don't think they have a place in this database. That's just my opinion and it would be interesting to hear from others on the subject.

[guinness]

True. Neither of us if right or wrong, it would be good to see what other people think to clarify the confusion.

[joby_toss]

I would very much like to see a separate section of the database dedicated to console applications! But I don't think this will happen because I remember Andrew saying that there are enough websites dedicated to such apps.

[Andrew Lee]

My personal stance is still the same as before. 99.9% of console apps are portable, so why bother? GUI apps, on the other hand, are different. The majority of apps in most categories are not still portable, AFAIK.

Try finding a portable commercial IDE, image editor or video editor, and you'll see what I mean. Even a large number of best-of-class open-source software or freeware are not portable without some external help (Firefox, Thunderbird, FeedDemon etc.)

My view is that we should share rare but useful console apps in the forum, and leave the database with GUI apps. Otherwise, are we really prepare for gcc, mingw and all the thousands of console apps added to the database?

Why don't we start a vote and find out what's the majority's view?

[chadross]

I completely agree with Andrew on this...