But it's already portable?!! Isn't it?

Ask other users about problems encountered with portable apps or help by posting solutions to existing problems.

Adding DIY field to the database?

Yes
9
90%
No
1
10%
Dunno
0
No votes
 
Total votes: 10

Message
Author
User avatar
Simon.T
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:07 am
Location: Palestine

But it's already portable?!! Isn't it?

#1 Post by Simon.T » Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:07 pm

TPFC - Pidgin Portable

Category: Instant Messengers (12)

Synopsis: Pidgin is a multi-protocol Instant Messaging client that allows you to...

Writes settings to: Application folder

How to extract: Download the self-extracting...

Image How to extract (Seniors/Pros (or maybe) DIY): Running Windows Pidgin From a USB Drive
This is a DIY (do-it-yourself) field for Seniors or Professional users [edit: more link to Answers.com DIY]

Stealth: Yes

License: Freeware/Open Source

System Requirements: Win2K / WinXP / Vista

I hope that Andrew won't kick my ass for all my requests :?
Last edited by Simon.T on Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:40 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Simon.T
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:07 am
Location: Palestine

#2 Post by Simon.T » Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:20 pm

1) So, for the last 6 months (less or more) I saw some complaints on some portable wrappers

Pidgin Portable Comments:
* Haller-Sucks: Why did he even do this? Pidgin is already portable. The developers decided to do it since he dropped the ball after the first release. [2007-08-16 13:32]

* toilet_duck: Um... Haller-Sucks is right. Pidgin was already portable, before Haller touched it. There's even an official how-to on the subject:

http://developer.pidgin.im/wiki/Using%2 ... maUSBDrive

Haller is just wasting his time "making" Pidgin portable. [2007-08-16 14:50]
You know what, Pidgin... eh... O.k.


2) But it is getting very interesting now if you check Matty at PuTTY Portable (Comments)
See Matty's Comment: When PuTTY Portable crashes (not stealth) & When PortaPutty crashes (stealth) [edit: colors Blue & Red]
M@tty: To Portable Paul: PortableApps.com versions are registry wrappers. No changes have been made to the original executable, so if PuTTY was to crash while you are using it - the settings remain in the registry (not stealth).

PortaPutty has been rewritten to use files rather than the registry, so it doesn't matter if it crashes, stuff is only written to your USB key and not the host PC. [2007-09-10 06:04]
And that's not all!!! you got here some very angry user who has 50% of his post's which are specificly against PuTTY Portable:

PuTTY Portable 0.5.9 Revision 2 Released (rokth) (AlephX "politically correct") :lol:

PuTTY Portable 0.5.9 Released (officially portable!) (rokth 1st) (rokth 2nd)
Last edited by Simon.T on Sun Oct 28, 2007 6:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Simon.T
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:07 am
Location: Palestine

#3 Post by Simon.T » Sat Oct 27, 2007 4:36 pm

By the way, I agree 1,000,000% that installing in one click is more comfortable and friendly (this is how I got into Firefox for the first time, "A web browser in 1 click", belive it or not. I was too lazy to install new stuff) but I think that we need to change a little bit a part of the policy which resides behind TPFC

User avatar
Ennovy
Posts: 430
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:21 am
Location: The Netherlands

#4 Post by Ennovy » Sun Oct 28, 2007 3:02 am

Hi Simon.T

I think it's a good idea to give more info in the how to extract field.
Or present a link to a site, like you did.
We, that is the TPFC forum members don't need this of course :lol: .
But it's the visitors of TPFC, searching this great database of portable software, who need this extra information.
But seriously, I support the idea. I think that members of this forum can contribute when they post new software. Give as much information as possible. (Look at yourself you will say. OK, that count's for me too sometimes :oops: )

Btw: your posts in this forum are always very very good documented, by including several links. Thumbs up for you Simon.T :wink:
Tough times never last but tough people do
-- Robert H. Schuller --

User avatar
nycjv321
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:42 pm

hmm...

#5 Post by nycjv321 » Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:18 am

Well I always hated the idea of portableapps.com and favor portablefreeware.com becuase it gave the user choices, instead of one software and USE IT kind of thing. I personally hate the idea of "portable launchers" since its inefficient (with all those read and writes just for a launcher, and many other things), instead of making a launcher for an OPEN SOURCE application someone should take a look at its source, then modify it to make it portable, then compile it, and release it to us noobs who do not know how to :D, but many people think it is more simple to make a launcher that imports, exports settings ... NO this idea of horrible, Its Insecure and inefficient. Also it is very rude to take someones application and release it under a launcher and then say "Here you go a new app I made with my almighty launchers that do it all"

btw if a "portable app" (from www.portableapps.com) crashes it actually depends on what crashed if just the original application's process crashed then the launcher will then resume and then clean up these settings from host pc and then all should be fine.... but launcher can miss some settings ...if not specified in source also windows registry of DOOM creates its own information(records etc... etc...) of applications that are executed that are known not to be cleaned by these launchers, apps such as firefox (which then does not make then 100% portable)

ok back to original purpose
we look at putty for example...
we have portable apps version and then the other version "PortaPutty" that claim to be portable.
I dont need to have convenient directories for settings and launcher sources and all that extra crap I just need it to run from any ware and keep its ability to connect home or maintain a router, host etc... and not leave traces on a host pc (only problem is PortaPutty is not updated as portable putty is :\). Users that dont know how to set up an app(such as this) to run in a portable manor (that is not portable by default) (another example:Pidgin) should NOT BE USING IT try something easier like miniaim (for aim atleast :\). Making everything so simplistic that even a 14 year old (half of portableapps.com forum :D) should be able to use it should NOT be on the top of the programmers mind he should be focusing on features (for us geeks :D), code stability(among these new features), etc... etc... not "can he/she just click and get it to work...
just my thoughts for thoughts :D

tmaibaum
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2007 4:31 am

Re: hmm...

#6 Post by tmaibaum » Mon Oct 29, 2007 11:03 am

Sorry guys, I just don't get this Haller-bashing.
nycjv321 wrote:Well I always hated the idea of portableapps.com and favor portablefreeware.com becuase it gave the user choices, instead of one software and USE IT kind of thing.
Portableapps.com simply has a different approach.
This site is compiling an exhaustive database of just about anything portable out there, as long as it's free. That's fine, I like it.
Portableapps on the other hand is offering a small selection of essential (open source-only!) programs within a coherent and supported app suite. That's fine, too. I don't use the suite myself, since I mostly use my portables on a local hard-disk. But I don't understand what's supposed to be wrong with it.
As for choice, it's no problem at all to add external portable programs (i.e., not repackaged by Portableapps) to their suite/launcher. Conversely, you don't have to use their launcher to use their programs (I don't use it myself).
nycjv321 wrote:I personally hate the idea of "portable launchers" since its inefficient (with all those read and writes just for a launcher, and many other things), instead of making a launcher for an OPEN SOURCE application someone should take a look at its source, then modify it to make it portable
Your mileage may vary, but I prefer to have the original code started by an external launcher. What you are proposing is actually a fork. Nothing against that at all, but for the time being, I prefer to stay with the flock. Makes it much easier to solve any issues.
nycjv321 wrote:Also it is very rude to take someones application and release it under a launcher and then say "Here you go a new app I made with my almighty launchers that do it all"
With all due respect, this is complete bullshit. First of all, John isn't doing that at all. All portable versions use the same names and logos as their non-portable originals. He doesn't claim to have "made" anything "new" in any way.

User avatar
Simon.T
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:07 am
Location: Palestine

#7 Post by Simon.T » Mon Oct 29, 2007 1:34 pm

Ennovy wrote:Hi Simon.T

I think it's a good idea to give more info in the how to extract field.
Or present a link to a site, like you did.
Thank you :P
Ennovy wrote:We, that is the TPFC forum members don't need this of course :lol: .
But it's the visitors of TPFC, searching this great database of portable software, who need this extra information.
Interesting... hhhmmmzzz... maybe we can do a special How to extract (DIY) which will be shown only if you (the user) are a log in TPFC member?
Ennovy wrote:But seriously, I support the idea. I think that members of this forum can contribute when they post new software. Give as much information as possible. (Look at yourself you will say. OK, that count's for me too sometimes :oops: )
Agreed!
Ennovy wrote:Btw: your posts in this forum are always very very good documented, by including several links. Thumbs up for you Simon.T :wink:
Thank you so much but... not always My 99 post & My 100 post! LOL

User avatar
Ennovy
Posts: 430
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2007 5:21 am
Location: The Netherlands

#8 Post by Ennovy » Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:38 am

Hi Simon.T
Thank you so much but... not always My 99 post & My 100 post! LOL
I missed your #100 post (Man) :oops: That's awesome :!:

I always wondered where the .T stands for in your nickname :?: Is that perhaps Simon Templar :D :lol: If so, I am an even bigger fan of you :wink:
Tough times never last but tough people do
-- Robert H. Schuller --

User avatar
Simon.T
Posts: 375
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:07 am
Location: Palestine

#9 Post by Simon.T » Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:12 am

Ennovy wrote:Hi Simon.T
Thank you so much but... not always My 99 post & My 100 post! LOL
I missed your #100 post (Man) :oops: That's awesome :!:
Thank you :lol:
Ennovy wrote:I always wondered where the .T stands for in your nickname :?: Is that perhaps Simon Templar :D :lol: If so, I am an even bigger fan of you :wink:
It's a short story... we will discuss about it soon (week or two)

User avatar
teobromina
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Spain

My vote

#10 Post by teobromina » Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:03 am

Ennovy wrote:Hi Simon.T

I always wondered where the .T stands for in your nickname :?:
I am thinking that perhaps it means a 'Theobromine fan'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theobromine :lol:

My vote goes to ... 'Yes'. :!: :!:

*JT.

User avatar
nycjv321
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:42 pm

Re: hmm...

#11 Post by nycjv321 » Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:10 am

tmaibaum wrote:Sorry guys, I just don't get this Haller-bashing.
nycjv321 wrote:Well I always hated the idea of portableapps.com and favor portablefreeware.com becuase it gave the user choices, instead of one software and USE IT kind of thing.
Portableapps.com simply has a different approach.
This site is compiling an exhaustive database of just about anything portable out there, as long as it's free. That's fine, I like it.
Portableapps on the other hand is offering a small selection of essential (open source-only!) programs within a coherent and supported app suite. That's fine, too. I don't use the suite myself, since I mostly use my portables on a local hard-disk. But I don't understand what's supposed to be wrong with it.
As for choice, it's no problem at all to add external portable programs (i.e., not repackaged by Portableapps) to their suite/launcher. Conversely, you don't have to use their launcher to use their programs (I don't use it myself).
nycjv321 wrote:I personally hate the idea of "portable launchers" since its inefficient (with all those read and writes just for a launcher, and many other things), instead of making a launcher for an OPEN SOURCE application someone should take a look at its source, then modify it to make it portable
Your mileage may vary, but I prefer to have the original code started by an external launcher. What you are proposing is actually a fork. Nothing against that at all, but for the time being, I prefer to stay with the flock. Makes it much easier to solve any issues.
nycjv321 wrote:Also it is very rude to take someones application and release it under a launcher and then say "Here you go a new app I made with my almighty launchers that do it all"
With all due respect, this is complete bullshit. First of all, John isn't doing that at all. All portable versions use the same names and logos as their non-portable originals. He doesn't claim to have "made" anything "new" in any way.
"I mostly use my portables on a local hard-disk. But I don't understand what's supposed to be wrong with it."

LOL whats wrong with just installing the original app on a home pc "I don't understand what's supposed to be wrong with it.""????

"but I prefer to have the original code started by an external launcher. What you are proposing is actually a fork."

What am I proposing??? Im talking about all the apps at www.portableapps.com(the original code), I would like to propose instead of making shitty launchers to instead modify the actual source of the ORIGINAL application(source of course) and make it portable from there(great example being the developers of Pidgin(or miranda or many more) more programmers need to follow their example and give users an optional feature to make the app portable. the people behind portableapps.com have already done this before check out http://portableapps.com/support/sudoku_ ... ifications why not just make it truly portable instead without a almighty launcher???

"Portableapps on the other hand is offering a small selection of essential (open source-only!) programs within a coherent and supported app suite."
NOPE you are Wrong :D, here http://portableapps.com/node/8119, I dont think uTorrent is Open Source, OSI certified software, but hmmm I could be wrong :D, correct me if I am :D, you could check www.portablefreeware.com for some actual OpenSource torrent clients (halite is best(OSP) for win32 platform (atleast))

M@tty
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 9:32 am
Contact:

#12 Post by M@tty » Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:26 am

If you modify the original program code, rather than write launchers around it, then you can't do in-place upgrades when a new version of the software comes out.

This is one of the things (well, probably the only thing :)) I like about Haller's wrappers, you can just copy in the executable files for any new version of WinSCP or PuTTY for example.

A 'fork' is a modification to the original code, and runs as a seperate project. They often end up being lost in time and so when new versions of the software come out, the forks may not be updated. This is where wrappers can be better. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_(soft ... velopment)

And µTorrent is freeware but it is not open-source, so you can't make source forks unless they are official.

User avatar
nycjv321
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:42 pm

...

#13 Post by nycjv321 » Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:00 am

WTF are you talking about M@tty? are you directing ure post at me?

I never Said that us USERS modify the source as you said "If you modify the original program code, rather than write launchers around it, then you can't do in-place upgrades when a new version of the software comes out. "
I said that the programmers them selfs should add code to make applications portable as well as add new features etc... for new version/releases (then we dont have 5 different portable versions :D) and also no reason for "in-place" upgrades (LOL)

I know WTF a "fork" is lol

and it is quite obvious that uTorrent is not open source software, I was only being sarcastic (LOL)

"so you can't make source forks unless they are official." from uTorrent??? lol that is another obvious statement as well (lol), if we are talking about applications in general it would have to depend :D on license.

User avatar
teobromina
Posts: 172
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:12 pm
Location: Spain

Programs and data must not go together

#14 Post by teobromina » Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:05 am

I think the best to prevent any loss of data when you upgrade any version is to separate data from program files. When I say data I mean not the possition of the window on the screen but some data that is worth to be saved, as your favorite bookmarks, etc.

The best is to identify where the program saves your valuable data, or better: to export while you can, all the data that are interesting for you, in another format (Firefox for instance is able to export to a single file all your bookmarks), thus preserving any loss. If the program is a complex one, this is generally an option in the menu; if the program is a simple one, then an INI file is its usual option. I gave a list of portable programs indicating which amongh them used its INI files to save the settings:
http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... php?t=2344

For me it does not matter if the portable program comes with its launcher of I have to manage myself to have a launcher (I like PStart, because it is easy to use it), because I follow the above simple rules.

Any information which avoids me to lost my time finding the best way to know where the program saves data (because somebody else has tried it before) is then welcome. This is enough to support my 'Yes' vote in favor of the Simon.T proposal.

Thanks.

*JT.
Last edited by teobromina on Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

M@tty
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 9:32 am
Contact:

#15 Post by M@tty » Wed Oct 31, 2007 11:43 am

To nycjv321: While I would love for all programmers to write their software in a portable manner, it is not something we can realistically ever expect to have 100% compliance. This is why people like John Haller write launchers/wrappers.

Regarding the fork stuff, it sounded from your posts like you were proposing people, such as John Haller, modify the source and not the original developers (which would be a fork - and these are often abandoned). You didn't make it clear.

As regards in-place upgrades, if you can't see why this is a benefit then I suggest you read all the material on PortableApps.com, and refer to teobromina's post above mine as that pretty much sums it up.

Post Reply