KeyPass - Bad News

Discuss anything related to portable freeware here.
Post Reply
Message
Author
melendz
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 3:50 pm
Location: Houston, TX

KeyPass - Bad News

#1 Post by melendz » Sun Mar 18, 2007 7:27 am

I was initially excited that a 2.0 version of KeyPass is already in alpha stage. However, I am sad to report that the new version will require Microsoft's .NET Framework and only will work on Win XP and Vista. This wipes its usefullness as a portable app.

I will stick with version 1.06 for as long as I can, but I welcome recommendations for a replacement application. I know that there a number of options listed in the database already.

Darkbee
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:35 am
Contact:

#2 Post by Darkbee » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:51 am

Oh dear, this seems like a rather backwards move. Although, why upgrade? Doesn't Keepass 1.x have all the features you need? I'm going to stick with it until I have absolutely no option but to use something else.

Another important repercussion of deciding to use .Net for version 2.x is that Keepass will no longer be cross platform (which I find particularly useful). How can you convert a Windows development platform to another OS??!?!!?

I think the developer/s of Keepass must have started using some weird drugs or something, whatever has possessed him/her/them?

sproaticus
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 8:22 am

#3 Post by sproaticus » Mon Mar 19, 2007 5:32 am

Darkbee wrote:Another important repercussion of deciding to use .Net for version 2.x is that Keepass will no longer be cross platform (which I find particularly useful). How can you convert a Windows development platform to another OS??!?!!?
.Net is cross-platform by design, even though Microsoft chose to limit their implementation to Windows platforms.

But the Mono Project has done an decent job of implementing the cross-platform bits that Microsoft neglected. There are plenty of .Net apps that compile cleanly on Linux.

That said, .Net 2.x support is still spotty - see http://www.mono-project.com/Roadmap

Just saying. :)

Darkbee
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:35 am
Contact:

#4 Post by Darkbee » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:34 am

I doubt very much that Microsoft intended for the .net Platform to be engineered for operating systems other than Windows (and why should they? They don't want the additional burden of supporting operating systems other than their own). The fact that somebody is/has done it is great but why go to all that trouble when a perfectly capable cross-platform development platform already exists; Java.

Java executable compilers are being developed and with improvements in the runtime environment there are reports that show that Java is now, for the most part, just as fast as any other programming language out there (as always some exceptions do apply). How is Java so vastly different from the .net platform other than it IS inherently cross-platform by design? In fact, I noted on the Keepass forums that some people are in the process of porting Keepass to Java.

It's a moot point anyway since I really don't want to install some hefty development platform just to run a 2MB application.

I'm struggling to see that motivation of going from a inherently cross-platform universal code base (I presume C or C++) to one that is strongly tied to a non-free, non open-source operating system. Seems a rather backward move to me, but then I'm not really a developer so perhaps there are things I don't understand. I appreciate that developer platforms offer simplicity and ease of design, and that we don't all have the skill or patience to write all of our apps in assembly language, but as far as I'm concerned the .net platform is not inherently cross-platform, was never designed to be and so seems a strange choice for a cross-platform audience.

In the defence of Keepass, the versions for other platforms are an offshoot of the Windows-based source (AFAIK), so pehraps it was never the author's original intention to produce a cross-platform application. In which case, I can understand why he/she/they might choose to use an development platform that is tied specifically to the targetted operating system.

I was just checking on the Keepass forums and it seems that people have already voiced concerns that using Keepass 2 from USB sticks will not be practical, if they are on computers without the .net platform. The recommendation of the developers is stick with 1.x, it will be suported for a long time (paraphrased). So I think that perhaps Keepass 2.x should not really be viewed as an improvement to 1.x but more of a branch in development. Note though that Keepass 1.x databases will NOT be dynamically useable in 2.x (you will have to import to the 2.x format, which will not work in 1.x).

As I stated in my original post, 1.x does everything I need it to and I'm not aware of any glaring security holes so there is not reason for me to stop using it, it does exactly what I want it to.

Darkbee
Posts: 294
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:35 am
Contact:

#5 Post by Darkbee » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:45 am

!!Off-On-A-Tangent Alert!!

P.S. Isn't "Mono" also some contagious disease, that I've only ever heard referenced in the United States? Does anyone know what Mono (the disease) is called in Europe (assuming a different name, since I've never heard of it before)? It's like how American's use the term "Pink Eye" to refer to an infectious disease usually referred to in the UK as conjunctivitis (although it could be that "pink eye" is a generic term that simply refers to any infection of the eye). I'd be happy for anyone to correct me on my American idioms, as being from the UK but living in the US it is handy to be able to freely "translate" between the two languages.

[edit]I have solved the mystery of 'Mono'. I vaguely recalled a child in high-school, who was out for several months with a disease called glandular fever, which as it turns out is really another name for mononucleosis or "mono".[/edit]

User avatar
Gary
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 5:13 am

#6 Post by Gary » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:44 am

Just discovered that the following statement:

"Microsoft's .Net is cross-platform by design."

meets the requirements of a Zen Koan. It just so happens to be similar in nature to the question, "What is the sound of one platform clapping?"


--Gary ;-)

User avatar
Andrew Lee
Posts: 2229
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:19 am
Contact:

#7 Post by Andrew Lee » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:22 am

The CLR bit of .NET is easy to port. It's the WinForms bit that is going to be the killer, since a cross-platform GUI layer that works well on the native platform is never easy. Look at Java/Swing! I wish the Mono project well, but I would be pleasantly surprised if they can release a cross-platform version of WinForms that doesn't suck.

Post Reply