The Portable Freeware Collection Forums

I've recently come across SyMenu's recent update regarding the new(ish) SPS system. I'm just curious if those in charge of updating the apps here on TPFC would consider creating/updating a simple text file using the SPS Builder app from SyMenu?

Essentially, it's a simple matter of filling in fields in the SPS Builder when adding new apps and then even more simply updating four fields when updating an app and then resubmitting the SPS file to the dev.

It would make SyMenu and the SPS system take off like a rocket, but more importantly would enable all users of SyMenu and TPFC to auto-update ALL their apps!

I'm just trying to get some feedback, good or bad, to see what the pro's and con's are for this. Does anyone disagree with the idea or think it's great?

Collaberation between the two projects would be superb, I know Gianluca has stated his hopes for this to happen, but I see little mention of it. I would like to know if it would ever be possible or even likely to happen?

Thanks for your feedback

Scott

Scott wrote:I'm just trying to get some feedback, good or bad, to see what the pro's and con's are for this. Does anyone disagree with the idea or think it's great?

For my part, I love the idea and hope to see it come to fruition. However, before I can advocate moving toward any new standard, it's important that we follow some of the examples of other successful standards. I've gone into more detail about this in the other thread on the SPS format.

To be clear, this isn't my site so I can't make any decision about this. Certainly those who help out with updates are welcome to do as they wish.

Although it would be great for TPFC to integrate the SPS standard, it would be enough for "those who help out with updates" to create/update SPS files for SyMenu. But convincing them it's worthwhile is another thing! Perhaps if there were enough demand?

Gian is struggling to develop and maintain updates, there are a few, and I do mean a few, others that help maintain updates. I for one struggle to keep the 30 or so apps in my care up to date. If the process could be spread out more, it would make things a lot easier. I don't know how much goes into each update here on TPFC, but it seems a fair amount of info is updated!

For those who don't know, generally only four fields need updating in each SPS file:
Version
Release Date
Download Link
Download Size

That's it!

Much easier than TPFC's requirement. In fact those things are still required for TPFC so it'd just be a matter of copy and paste.

it's important that we follow some of the examples of other successful standards.

Such as...? Please elaborate.

sl23 wrote:there are a few, and I do mean a few, others that help maintain updates. I for one struggle to keep the 30 or so apps in my care up to date.

This is what I call the "critical mass" issue. Programs will lounge in obscurity for years until something comes along (either in technology or feature-set) and they suddenly jump into the mainstream. It's difficult to say what will trigger that for SPS.

webfork wrote:it's important that we follow some of the examples of other successful standards.

sl23 wrote:Such as...? Please elaborate.

This is a huge topic with a ton of examples. A few that jump to mind include HTML, ePub, LaTex, the Open Document Format, and even PDF that all have a spec, a standards organization of some kind, and usually multiple implementations. I think the closest I was able to find was XML/YAML, though I realize SPS might be considered a subset of some other standard.

The point of this is to answer some basic questions about how the format is treated. So for example, as someone pointed out in the other thread, there are issues to consider around users creating junk or bad SPS files. Some that came to me include:

• Method - How this gets efficiently and effectively managed over time?
• Ownership - How do we give authors control of their own? If no one controls or benefits from the standard, who will maintain and advocate for it?
• Control - If Gian wants to modify the format next year and people disagree about that change, what happens? How do we react if someone takes this idea and goes in another direction or tries to patent it (e.g. Amazon's clearly undeserved One Click patent)?

I don't know which of those are real issues and which are non-issues but that's sort of the point: we need some kind of clear foundation built from the work of those who have gone before.

Old thread update:

When I posted about this a few years ago, I didn't find a lot of the structure of open standards (like the update XML files used in SyMenu) but here's a look at the increasingly collaborative systems in technology.

"Back in the early 2000s, standards bodies attempted to codify features already implemented, and attempts to extend the web were often overly complex. The process typically occurred behind closed doors, usually with a few large companies attempting to push their technology agenda, with little opportunity for the public to participate in the process other than perhaps a mailing list. The collaborative tools we rely on today simply did not exist, and most browser implementations were not based on open source software. Simply put, it was difficult to make progress in that environment."

Long story short, I was a fan of SPS Builder and its format as a tool for getting updates and had myself a nice little workflow I had devised (with some batch file foo) that was going breezily, thank you, until a single change (in the updates file format) threw a spanner in it in such a way I was never able to recover.

These days, although far from my ideal, I make do with the likes of Pint and Chocolatey where I don't have to worry about such biting niggles...

Midas wrote:... until a single change (in the updates file format) threw a spanner in it in such a way I was never able to recover.

That's unfortunate but that's just the sort of thing that an open format, collaboratively developed would presumably avoid.

Out of curiosity, what changed?

webfork wrote:Out of curiosity, what changed?

• Rather trivially, from what I recall, the updating flag went from a statically named online ZIP file to a date named XML. In his defense, let it be known that the author provided a solution involving switching from my original Wget to Curl for updater purposes -- but I could never make that work...

Speaking of TPFC updates:

Just stumbled upon a Twitter user going by the moniker @UsbSoft, who persistently posts colorful references to every single one of our DB updates,
...and appears to have been doing so ever since about 2013.

Actually, @UsbSoft's tweets about portable software started way back around 2010, but were not referencing TPFC then.

Harmless, welcome free publicity, I reckon.

Might @UsbSoft, perchance, turn out to be some Mystery Insider, an open secret familiar around here to everyone else but me ?

Just stumbled upon a Twitter user going by the moniker @UsbSoft, who persistently posts references to our DB updates...and appears to have been doing so ever since about 2013.

Yeah it looks like a service that just grabs content from the RSS feed https://feeds.feedburner.com/pfc then for some reason running the URL through two different URL shrinkers (t.co and ow.ly). I didn't see any retweets or comments, and only a few likes so that appears to be the sum total of this twitter account.

I guess since some people prefer twitter over RSS as I was able to find some services that will essentially convert them, as this account is doing.

Might perchance be Mystery Insider's open secret, familiar to everyone else but me ?

We don't really have something like that here. There's a few semi-open secrets about how we handle spam but that's about it.

Enlightening take on the subject, webfork, Ta !

(Anyway, even unsolicited, TPFC's awareness leveraged by Twitter steady posts can't really hurt... )

__philippe wrote:TPFC's awareness leveraged by Twitter steady posts can't really hurt[/size]

Yeah I gave this a bit more thought and you're probably right. Non-Google search engines keep focusing on our forums, which isn't what I'd prefer. The entries have often been crafted by many hands while the forums are intentionally informal. Sources like this that point direclty to our entries are probably helping.