webfork wrote:Danix: Is this accurate? Is Inkscape Portable superior in terms of size/portability?
As Haller has confirmed that Inskape Portable has not full support to Recent Files paths now I can say YES, if this is the requirement to be listed on TPFC.
webfork wrote:Danix: as such, I encourage you to contact the developers (as with the RedNotebook epsisode) and ask them if they would be willing to support your software as well as the PA version they're linking to.
About X-RedNotebook, since the wpp version has reported on the official website, why it doesn't appear on TPFC?
http://www.portablefreeware.com/index.php?id=2086?
webfork wrote:At this point in the conversation, I'm starting to lean back to my original position as the WPP crew doesn't seem interested in getting consideration from the Inkscape folks.
About this point has already answered ZioZione
http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... 641#p39641
JohnTHaller wrote: Why would it be necessary to contact the developer to get them to give blessing to a 3rd party solution unless there is a bias favoring that package over the official one?
Perhaps because PA is not the only project that develops portable applications? But there are others similar projects?
webfork wrote:I don't think its UPX compression. X-Inkscape is drawn from a different version (0.48.2 r9819) than Inkscape Portable (0.48.1). A good part of the size difference appears to come from some additional LOCALE files, which probably means more language support. I couldn't find a changelog for the r9819 version.
As a side note, the PA version is dramatically smaller if you don't check multi-language at extract (78 megs English-only vs. 143 megs).
About this point has already answered zandet2
http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... 580#p39580
JohnTHaller wrote: If I recall correctly, it was Chris Morgan who added this feature in Inkscape for Inkscape Portable and had it added to the documentation. Or, at the very least, it was he who helped them add it. That's why it's named "INKSCAPE_PORTABLE_..." I figured you saw it in our configuration and used it from there. But whether you got it from us or from the docs is fine and doesn't really matter.
Frankly I have difficulty understanding you. Before you say that we have copied your method, but now that "whether you got it from us or from the docs is fine and doesn't really matter".
JohnTHaller wrote:That's why it's named "INKSCAPE_PORTABLE_..."
Sorry but neither "INKSCAPE" nor "PORTABLE" are names that identify PA.
JohnTHaller wrote:I think you'll find that many of your false positives also originate from your AutoIT launchers due to the fact that AutoIT is popular with malware writers.
Not only. Many files belonging to programs themselves.
JohnTHaller wrote:The only thing I personally have a problem with is trying to make whether X-Inkscape remains as the primary listing about 'fairness' because PortableApps.com has more listings. Inkscape Portable is the portable version distributed by Inkscape, so it should be listed first. I don't see the logic in second-guessing the publisher here and would likewise say that the main listing should be X-Inkscape if that was the version they published.
This means all PA versions listed on TPFC and not present on authors website can be replaced by wpp versions? As has been demonstrated (and as Haller admitted), all have problems with paths, so they should be listed as alternative to wpp versions. Among other things, other users have noticed this
http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... 597#p39597. But, to end this ridiculous competition, I think it's better the first program that's listed gets supremacy. I had reported X-Inkscape and a few others programs in 2006 to Andrew directly via e-mail and it seem right they stay where they are.
JohnTHaller wrote:Many of our apps are more portable than their WinPenPack equivalents.
It's really funny that you continue to say this, since many users have reported that PA applications are not full-path portable. And you affirm yourself that "a handful of apps aren't yet full-path portable as they are using older launcher code that hasn't been updated in a long time." I do not know where you're trying to go with these statements. Even Naxalite recently tested X-LibreOffice and LibreOffice Portable, getting these results
http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... 237#p33237. Obviously LibreOffice Portable has the same (and other) problems. So, please, verify properly before making false claims.
SYSTEM wrote:JohnTHaller wrote:
In terms of additional functionality, we're experimenting with allowing the installer to remove additional languages in the current LibreOffice Portable release. We've gotten some great positive feedback on it and will likely implement this directly in our installer-proper in the near future, meaning additional apps can take advantage of it. We'll also be getting these strings translated into the 71 languages supported by the PortableApps.com Installer as well so that no one at all will be confused.
Great!
This functionality is already present in the current (and previous) release of X-LibreOffice. See
here for 3.3.x and
here for 3.4.x. Each package includes all 104 languages and offers to the user the option to choose one of available languages, including the dictionary of chosen language, removing all other languages. Its size, once installed, is about 350 MB (excluded Java). View images:
language selection and
dictionary selection
JohnTHaller wrote:In addition, the X-Inkscape version has jumped the gun and released as official 0.48.2 before it has been officially released by the Inkscape devs. According to the Inkscape site, 0.48.1 is still the official release even though they have 0.48.2 in both standard and portable forms available on SourceForge. Until a given publisher announces a release, you can't really call a given piece of software 'final' as it could easily be pulled or revised.
webfork, now I have separated two versions:
X-Inkscape 0.48.2-1 -
X-Inkscape 0.48.1-2.