Prev: DocFetcher - java-based desktop searcher
Next: alt.comp.freeware links at Fri Jan 15 21:20:02 2010
From: JB on 16 Jan 2010 13:23
Spamblk wrote:

> > I think that portable software should not require JAVA or .NET at all.
> > But I never even download JAVA or .NET requiring software, 'portable'
> > or not.
> >
> > Yrrah
>
> Indeed. Though I once downloaded a couple of programs that then demanded
> .Net. The programs were deleted without any further ado.
>
>
> JB <none(a)server.null> wrote in
> news:hin64v$tc9$1(a)news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > mike wrote:
> >
> >> What Good is a Portable App that Won't Run?
> >>
> >> I just tried to run the portable version of docfetcher.
> >> Sorry, Charlie, you need version blah, blah, blah of java.
> <snip...>
> >
> > On vanilla installs of *which* OS? Mac, Windows, and Linux
> > inclusive? Do you still support DOS 5 and Windows 3.11? 95/98? What
> > about things like .NET? It's certainly part of the vanilla install
> > of *some* modern, widely used operating systems. It's an additional
> > installation to others. So does this mean portable applications
> > can't be written using that framework? That would be odd, given
> > the fact that part of the reason .NET exists is promoting
> > portability (in a different but relevant sense). Ironically, Java
> > is a similar tool. ;)
>
> I don't think that "Stealth" (as Portablefreeware calls it) is strictly
> required for portability but IMHO it is a very desirable attribute of
> portability.

I don't disagree at all. The killer portable app would run on any
machine regardless of what's installed, or not. But that's not a
practical thing to even try for. You might pull it off with a "hello
world" program, but not anything much more complex than that.

> Andrew of Portablefreeware even allows some programs that
> modify the registry and accepts them albeit reluctantly as portable. Foxit
> stores settings in the registry though it will start up happily without any
> settings at all, IOW its at least no-install software.

Indeed. Andrew has a god grip on things. And the only absolute
criteria he places on portable software is that it runs without
installing. The rest is pretty much optional desires.

> I do not regard .Net as being compatible with portability though some
> others do. There are computers using M$ XP in the local library system that
> will NOT run .Net programs, therefore .Net I don't regard as portable. If

You're wrong about this. System requirements have little or nothing
to do with portabilty, and they *must* exist regardless. In fact a
piece of software that only runs on two specific machines with
unique features, but does it from a dongle, is "portable".

That niggle aside, *all* these so called "frameworks" have to some
extent the goal of portability. It's the very reason a "runtime"
library exists... so that all the "under the hood" stuff is present
regardless of what machine you go to, and standardized. The fact
that a given framework isn't distributed on a given machine by
default is essentially meaningless.

> M$ decides .Net will be bundled with all Windows 7 machines and WIN 7
> becomes as ubiqitous as XP is now then I would then think .Net does not
> compromise portability.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: DocFetcher - java-based desktop searcher
Next: alt.comp.freeware links at Fri Jan 15 21:20:02 2010