Positive press on lifehacker - comments

Any other tech-related topics
Message
Author
User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#16 Post by JohnTHaller »

SYSTEM wrote:Correct, that may happen when portability is lost slowly. :(
Hmmm, perhaps PFC could have a "last reviewed" date to indicate when an app was last checked. We double-check PA.c apps on a regular basis (and hear about it quickly when something changes in a new release and leaves something). A last reviewed date on PFC could let folks know when it's been a while since an app was double-checked. You could even setup a queue of apps that haven't been checked in a long time. It would also help keep listings fresh. And lots of members who otherwise would only being using PFC could contribute something back if you give them a guide on how to check.
SYSTEM wrote:I'd like to clarify that I prefer those choices as well. :P
I figured :-P
SYSTEM wrote:VLC was a "kinda, sorta, a little bit portable listing" and its entry should have been switched earlier. In most of the other cases where you've suggested switching an entry, the natively portable option hasn't been that bad.
Once I got a feel for PFC preferences, I only started making the suggestion when something within the app is broken or it really hurts portability (like rebuilding font cache on every PC).
SYSTEM wrote:I don't think so. To begin with, most people don't even notice if something is left behind. (On the other hand, if an application leaves files to a visible location such as the desktop, it's not portable in my opinion.)
You'd be surprised. We regularly get users who think portable software is supposed to leave no trace at all and have to explain things like prefetch and certain registry entries in Explorer and the like.
SYSTEM wrote:Won't work. We can't force anyone to read the instructions. :?
True. But perhaps when there are instructions for a given app that differ from "download and unzip" or "download and run the portable installer" a quick messagebox warning could be shown to remind them. It could be on by default and disable-able in preferences by members.
SYSTEM wrote:Being inaccurate is better than giving a very bad impression.
Being accurate (and fair) is more important than glossy when describing technical things. Your description would actually downplay the issue of actual features besides most recent files breaking with some apps. But definitely point taken on some new users not understanding what 'things' are in relation to breakage and left behind. I'll be sure to be more accurate in the future.
SYSTEM wrote:PFC folks, including me, dislike wrappers and that's why the natively portable version is usually listed as the main option. Note that we give the visitor choice. If a visitor considers something core functionality, he/she is free to download the PortableApps.com or winPenPack version.
True. And when there are listings like that, I try to hit a couple points about what works in the PA.c Format version. With apps like Opera where multiple small things break, additional minor things are left out and left to the user to discover when they break, of course.
SYSTEM wrote:To me, the whole PortableApps.com Platform looks like a vendor lock-in, even though it's open source.
I'm a bit confused by that view. The PortableApps.com Platform supports apps in any portable format including Zip files and standalone EXEs and lists them in the menu as first class citizens right alongside PortableApps.com Format apps, so users are free to use our menu, backup/restore utility and our other apps and utilities with any portable software they like. Our installer and launcher are both 100% open source, built entirely using open source tools, and completely free for both open source and closed source freeware vendors to use. Neither require the PortableApps.com Platform to function.

Publishers can distribute their PA.c Format apps directly to their users, with our assistance or have us do it ourselves with their permission. And all our apps are similarly open to use with other menus, within the Windows Start Menu, or directly from Windows Explorer or the command line. Even our entire base platform is 100% open source. An interested developer can custom build their own version if they so desire (provided they follow the open source licenses and don't use our trademarks/trade dress, of course).

All that together is more open than any other portable software project and about as unlocked-in as you can get.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#17 Post by I am Baas »

Slowly going through the comments...
it's a database listing portable software and lists many of PortableApps.com's apps (including 6 of the 7 apps they mention as examples in the lifehacker article).
Should be 5 (Foobar2000 music player and SumatraPDF listing link to the developers Website).

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#18 Post by I am Baas »

Emphasis added...
JohnTHaller wrote:The PortableApps.com Platform supports apps in any portable format including Zip files and standalone EXEs and lists them in the menu as first class citizens right alongside PortableApps.com Format apps, so users are free to use our menu, backup/restore utility and our other apps and utilities with any portable software they like. Our installer and launcher are both 100% open source, built entirely using open source tools, and completely free for both open source and closed source freeware vendors to use. Neither require the PortableApps.com Platform to function.
Shouldn't you then use the same cautionary statement you wrote regarding TPFC on your Website too after all?

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#19 Post by JohnTHaller »

I am Baas wrote:Shouldn't you then use the same cautionary statement you wrote regarding TPFC on your Website too after all?
While the platform supports any app the user chooses to bring to it, we don't promote or link to apps in other formats in our database or on our website. Our app directory consists entirely of apps in PortableApps.com Format and apps are only allowed in after being tested for compliance with our guidelines. If the user is bringing their own app, they're getting it from somewhere else (like PFC or a publisher directly) and the onus is on them to ensure it is fully portable and to place the files in the correct location. And, honestly, if the user is manually copying in a single-exe app or unzipping an app to a location, they'd hopefully know this. Just in case they have not, I have added a warning to the explanation on our site about adding non-PA.c Format apps to the platform.
I am Baas wrote:Should be 5 (Foobar2000 music player and SumatraPDF listing link to the developers Website).
You are correct, sir. 71.4% of the examples instead of 85.7%. :)
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
I am Baas
Posts: 4150
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:51 am

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#20 Post by I am Baas »

JohnTHaller wrote:Many users who are only familiar with the PortableApps.com definition of portable (nothing left behind but what windows itself does, recently used file lists and all features continuing to work, etc) are confused by that. So, I spelled out that that was a difference for any users new to PFC.
LoL, you 'forgot' to tell to all the confused users out there that a lot of the PortableApps.com applications are already natively portable under your definitions/guidelines and do not require your wrapper to run portably. No one went out there to 'educate' users about the needless trash PAF launchers often add to a system. I mean, that's also a difference, is it not?

If your real motive was to state the difference/educate users, why didn't you follow this general concept:
JohnTHaller wrote:Portable Freeware Collection approach to portability is a more do-it-yourself approach than you may be used to. Apps will often have instructions on how to extract them from their installer and manually configure them to enable 'portable mode' for the given app. Additionally, you should pay attention to the 'Stealth' line. If it doesn't say 'Yes' then the app will leave things behind on every PC you use. And pay attention to the 'Writes settings to' as an app could write it's settings to the registry and still be considered portable. Finally, watch the Path Portability line. Unless it says automatic relative path, some things will break as you move between PCs (last opened file list, favorite files, custom backgrounds/themes, etc).

If you're looking for a more 'just download and use it' experience, I'd humbly suggest PortableApps.com's apps. All of them are 'stealth' (according to PFC's definition), self-contained, require no manual configuration, use an easy-to-use self-extracting installer and automatically adjust paths.
???

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#21 Post by JohnTHaller »

I am Baas wrote:LoL, you 'forgot' to tell to all the confused users out there that a lot of the PortableApps.com applications are already natively portable under your definitions/guidelines and do not require your wrapper to run portably. No one went out there to 'educate' users about the needless trash PAF launchers often add to a system. I mean, that's also a difference, is it not?
Ah, so you're more keen to use words like 'trash' and laugh about it in reference to our apps. You'll note I never used such terminology in explaining how PFC works on lifehacker. Nor would I as it would be uncalled for and untrue. You'll also note in the What is a Portable App? link I referenced, it explains exactly the reasons behind the things included in PortableApps.com Format. Things like a launcher that portablizes the stuff that lots of users care about (though you don't). A consistent location for Data for easy backups. A consistent location for all the app files and any plugins/add-ons for easy upgrades. And lots of other things. Very few apps in our database are fully natively portable. And even for the ones which already are, they're in PA.c Format more for consistency, easy backups, easy installs/upgrades and compatibility with our app store and updater. This isn't new information. And we'd never try to get PFC to switch from listing a fully natively portable version of an app to our package as, again, different needs for different niches.
I am Baas wrote:If your real motive was to state the difference/educate users, why didn't you follow this general concept:...???
That was a response to a user posting in the PFC forums who couldn't understand why a given app he downloaded here didn't 'just work' as he expected it to. And it's an accurate description of the things he needs to pay attention to if he's coming from an experience of just downloading apps and using them. My response on lifehacker was to point out that PFC apps behave differently than what most users expect to be portable. Here are the two relevant paragraphs including the one I added after the short edit period expired on the first post:
JohnTHaller wrote:Use care when downloading from Portable Freeware Collection as they have a different definition of what is 'portable' than we do. Having things breaks as you move PCs and leave things behind are acceptable at PFC even though they violate our guidelines of what a portable app is: (link to What is a Portable App?). If you're only using them locally, though, it isn't as big of an issue.

It should be noted that you can check a Portable Freeware Collection listing to see if an app is considered 'stealth' and automatically adjust paths so things don't break as you move PCs. If an app fits both those criteria, then the app should be fully portable.
Just as factual as the post on here, but not quite as detailed as the one on here because I wasn't responding to a PFC user who didn't understand the way PFC lists things. I figured most users to fully get it from the information provided. And it is relevant as all of the 'Popular titles' listed on the homepage - except the 3 PA.c Format apps - are either not stealth, break paths when moved, or don't list whether path portability is an issue for the app. Some of that is simply an issue of the database not providing the info (CrystalDiskInfo doesn't care, for instance) but some of that is stuff that your average new user would otherwise miss and would surprise them (like Sumatra not displaying thumbnails and listing all their PDFs they usually view even though the local desktop version does).

Point taken, though, as I should have spelled out that PFC accepts apps which leaves things behind and have features break as you move but does specify when that is the case. A post more along the lines of the one I made to the user here would have been more clear.
Last edited by JohnTHaller on Wed Mar 07, 2012 9:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

Hydaral
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#22 Post by Hydaral »

John T. Haller wrote:...even though though they violate our guidelines of what a portable app is...
Sounds like we need to come up with our own "guidelines" then PAc can "violate" ours. :)

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#23 Post by JohnTHaller »

Hydaral wrote:
John T. Haller wrote:...even though though they violate our guidelines of what a portable app is...
Sounds like we need to come up with our own "guidelines" then PAc can "violate" ours. :)
The 'they' refers to specific apps. Apps that violate our guidelines (and which we don't consider fully portable) that PFC accepts into the database. 'They' doesn't refer to PFC or PFC users. It isn't an us vs them thing. Hurray for vague pronoun abuse. :?
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

User avatar
SYSTEM
Posts: 2041
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:19 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#24 Post by SYSTEM »

JohnTHaller wrote:
SYSTEM wrote:Correct, that may happen when portability is lost slowly. :(
Hmmm, perhaps PFC could have a "last reviewed" date to indicate when an app was last checked. We double-check PA.c apps on a regular basis (and hear about it quickly when something changes in a new release and leaves something). A last reviewed date on PFC could let folks know when it's been a while since an app was double-checked. You could even setup a queue of apps that haven't been checked in a long time. It would also help keep listings fresh. And lots of members who otherwise would only being using PFC could contribute something back if you give them a guide on how to check.
Good idea.
JohnTHaller wrote:
SYSTEM wrote:VLC was a "kinda, sorta, a little bit portable listing" and its entry should have been switched earlier. In most of the other cases where you've suggested switching an entry, the natively portable option hasn't been that bad.
Once I got a feel for PFC preferences, I only started making the suggestion when something within the app is broken or it really hurts portability (like rebuilding font cache on every PC).
Good.
JohnTHaller wrote:
SYSTEM wrote:I don't think so. To begin with, most people don't even notice if something is left behind. (On the other hand, if an application leaves files to a visible location such as the desktop, it's not portable in my opinion.)
You'd be surprised. We regularly get users who think portable software is supposed to leave no trace at all and have to explain things like prefetch and certain registry entries in Explorer and the like.
Yes, there are such users, but I think they're a minority.
JohnTHaller wrote:
SYSTEM wrote:Won't work. We can't force anyone to read the instructions. :?
True. But perhaps when there are instructions for a given app that differ from "download and unzip" or "download and run the portable installer" a quick messagebox warning could be shown to remind them. It could be on by default and disable-able in preferences by members.
Very good idea. :)
JohnTHaller wrote: But definitely point taken on some new users not understanding what 'things' are in relation to breakage and left behind. I'll be sure to be more accurate in the future.
Excellent. :)
JohnTHaller wrote:
SYSTEM wrote:To me, the whole PortableApps.com Platform looks like a vendor lock-in, even though it's open source.
I'm a bit confused by that view. The PortableApps.com Platform supports apps in any portable format including Zip files and standalone EXEs and lists them in the menu as first class citizens right alongside PortableApps.com Format apps, so users are free to use our menu, backup/restore utility and our other apps and utilities with any portable software they like. Our installer and launcher are both 100% open source, built entirely using open source tools, and completely free for both open source and closed source freeware vendors to use. Neither require the PortableApps.com Platform to function.

Publishers can distribute their PA.c Format apps directly to their users, with our assistance or have us do it ourselves with their permission. And all our apps are similarly open to use with other menus, within the Windows Start Menu, or directly from Windows Explorer or the command line. Even our entire base platform is 100% open source. An interested developer can custom build their own version if they so desire (provided they follow the open source licenses and don't use our trademarks/trade dress, of course).

All that together is more open than any other portable software project and about as unlocked-in as you can get.
I'm referring to the advantages of using PA.c apps and PA.c Platform together. Many features, such as automatic updates, require the user to use both the apps and the Platform. That likely raises the threshold of using third-party applications or third-party launchers.

If one uses PA.c apps, automatic updates are a good reason to use the Platform.
If one uses the Platform, automatic updates are a good reason to use PA.c apps.
If one uses PA.c apps, automatic updates are a good reason to use the Platform.
And so on...

I understand that it's FOSS and the reasons are technical, but it looks like a lock-in anyway.
My YouTube channel | Release date of my 13th playlist: August 24, 2020

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#25 Post by JohnTHaller »

SYSTEM wrote:I'm referring to the advantages of using PA.c apps and PA.c Platform together. Many features, such as automatic updates, require the user to use both the apps and the Platform. That likely raises the threshold of using third-party applications or third-party launchers.

If one uses PA.c apps, automatic updates are a good reason to use the Platform.
If one uses the Platform, automatic updates are a good reason to use PA.c apps.
If one uses PA.c apps, automatic updates are a good reason to use the Platform.
And so on...

I understand that it's FOSS and the reasons are technical, but it looks like a lock-in anyway.
The reasons are mainly technical. It makes far more sense to have all updates managed via a single process than to have every single app manually checking for its own updates. That way there's only a single process asking for access to the internet via your software firewall (PortableAppsUpdater.exe) rather than alerts for a hundreds of different apps' individual launchers (AppNamePortable.exe * A LOT). It's also a lot more maintainable as, when the updater is improved, we don't have to rebuild 400+ PortableApps.com Format packages for them to all see the benefit. If a user is using a non-PAF app, they're no worse off using it with the PA.c Platform in terms of updates, since they'd need to manually update anyway. And if a user is using a PAF version or a non-PAF version of an app without the platform, neither of them will update anyway (with very few exceptions).

Obviously, we prefer PAF apps since it makes it really easy for a publisher to distribute a portable app that will work with everything, with or without our help and with or without being in our app store. And it would be a disaster to try to manage hundreds of non-PAF apps - each with their own unique way of upgrading without losing user settings or leaving deprecated files behind - within our updater and app store. Or to try and configure our backup utility to manually understand how each individual non-PAF app stores its user data internally, since they are all different as well. Standardization and consistency has its benefits. And we chose to do so in an open platform, open format, and open source way.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

stevegutry
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:20 am

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#26 Post by stevegutry »

That way there's only a single process asking for access to the internet via your software firewall (PortableAppsUpdater.exe) rather than alerts for a hundreds of different apps' individual launchers (AppNamePortable.exe * A LOT).
So how do you account for the fact that if you click on the help file that is in the root directory of each of your portable apps they always "dial home" to your website? That type of behaviour is normally attributed to spyware. I have also noticed over the years that if a newbie develops a portable app along your guidelines and fail to incorporate this feature then they get growled at and some had actually had the "audacity" to have it actually open up a real help file from within the program.

User avatar
kAlug
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Assis, São Paulo, Brazil

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#27 Post by kAlug »

stevegutry wrote:So how do you account for the fact that if you click on the help file that is in the root directory of each of your portable apps they always "dial home" to your website?
No they don't.

User avatar
JohnTHaller
Posts: 714
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:44 pm
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#28 Post by JohnTHaller »

stevegutry wrote:So how do you account for the fact that if you click on the help file that is in the root directory of each of your portable apps they always "dial home" to your website? That type of behaviour is normally attributed to spyware. I have also noticed over the years that if a newbie develops a portable app along your guidelines and fail to incorporate this feature then they get growled at and some had actually had the "audacity" to have it actually open up a real help file from within the program.
Please take a moment to open up a help file and see for yourself. Like Firefox Portable (the most popular portable app). You'll note that nothing within is loaded from any external servers (the images are self-contained in the app). The links go to the help topics on PortableApps.com if you click them, of course. That way every user has up to date content. Any 3rd party can include anything they want in the help.html (except malicious content, spam, porn, etc, of course). Some have a simple redirect to their own custom online help (see TeamViewer Portable which is developed by the publisher itself and listed in our directory). Others follow our online help template (see Task Coach Portable, also developed by the publisher itself and listed in our directory).

Have no idea what dial-home 'feature' you seem to feel we're including in html code that's free for everyone to read or somehow requiring 3rd parties to include when they are obviously not. The only thing required is a help.html file in the root directory that must either contain help, contain links to online or local help, or redirect to an online or local help file. You can't include a .hlp or .chm in the root, though, as those go in the app directory with the app so that it can access them properly.
PortableApps.com - The open standard for portable software | Support Net Neutrality

Hydaral
Posts: 194
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:36 pm

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#29 Post by Hydaral »

JohnTHaller wrote:
Hydaral wrote:
John T. Haller wrote:...even though though they violate our guidelines of what a portable app is...
Sounds like we need to come up with our own "guidelines" then PAc can "violate" ours. :)
The 'they' refers to specific apps. Apps that violate our guidelines (and which we don't consider fully portable) that PFC accepts into the database. 'They' doesn't refer to PFC or PFC users. It isn't an us vs them thing. Hurray for vague pronoun abuse. :?
Ahh, OK. That makes more sense. IMO that comment seemed a little adversarial for you.

User avatar
webfork
Posts: 10818
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:06 pm
Location: US, Texas
Contact:

Re: Positive press on lifehacker today...

#30 Post by webfork »

guinness wrote:
JohnTHaller wrote:Use care when downloading from Portable Freeware Collection as they have a different definition of what is 'portable' than we do. Having things breaks as you move PCs and leave things behind are acceptable at PFC even though they violate our guidelines of what a portable app is: [portableapps.com] If you're only using them locally, though, it isn't as big of an issue.
I'm a little astounded by this comment.
I'm really angry about this.
JohnTHaller wrote:I didn't add any commentary about it the policy to the comment on lifehacker, just a factually accurate description.
Its called framing. People use it all the time in politics. So here in the States its "climate change" rather than "global warming" on the right or "green initiatives" rather than "industry subsidies" on the left. Anyone reading behind the lines of your words hears you calling us "trash" the way Baas rightly pointed out.

Your choice of words matters and if you want to pretend like it doesn't, I guess PortableApps is something you should avoid because some people might get confused that they're donating to the program in question, which took lots of work or donating to PortableApps, which is an easy wrapper program that is just adapted over and over to different needs. Its not a big deal if you just make sure you go to the site in question.

I'm not saying anything factually inaccurate. But anyone reading between the lines would hear "wow, what an exploitative project."

Post Reply