New Platform 12.0.5. Download or Buy on Drive
Over 300 free and legal portable apps including Xonotic (Mar 1, 2015) needs your help: Please donate today - Hosting Applications There?

Augi - July 17, 2009 - 11:02am
Share on Facebook

Would it be allowed for PA.c applications to be hosted on (FH.c)?

I imagine positive exposure and a strengthening of credibility of PA.c. FH.c would introduce PA.c apps to a wider public (than the current Sourceforge community or other tech communities/junkies). FH.c has a reputation for hosting only malware-free applications. Were FH.c to host PA.c apps, I believe that would only strengthen PA.c's reputation and credibility in the digital world.'s Purpose:

With our aim is to provide you with the simplest method of downloading the newest versions of the best software - without the usual excessive popups or spyware and without the low quality software.'s Features (Guarantee):

  • Only the best software, we focus on quality not quantity.
  • We keep the old versions of programs, so if you update and don't like the new version, you can always return to the old one.
  • All software is 100% spyware and virus free.
  • EDIT 1: For clarity, changed "malware free" to "malware-free".
    EDIT 2: Added information about, from .

    UPDATE, 2011 APR 23: Read about how PA.c aims to add more hardware to accommodate for increased user traffic. I ask, how much traffic, i.e. bandwidth and associated costs, from users downloading freeware apps could be reduced if these apps were hosted on FH.c? - Link

    ( categories: )


    AugiFH.c has a reputation for hosting only malware free applications.

    I thought you were saying they only hosted free applications that contained malware! - Might want to reword that.


    It's perfectly clear to me.


    it is ambiguous

    needs a hyphen... should be "malware-free applications"


    Right, that's what would make it clear.

    Now FH.c is a "Malware-Free" Site

    I made the edit for clarity. Thanks for catching it.

    Limits are for people with no imagination.


    We don't want to be messed up with file sharing sites - which also won't really help. SourceForge is good for what we want, and is where our downloads are hosted.

    I am a Christian and a developer and moderator here.

    “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” – Proverbs 15:1

    File sharing site?

    What's a file sharing site? They host freeware as well as open source programs. They're a little more discriminating than and Softpedia, among others. For a couple years I'd visit that site a few times a week and keep up on all my latest stuff.

    They do have file sharing programs, e.g. uTorrent, but so what? Don't we have portable torrent software as well?

    I think it's a great idea. Not that PA really needs more exposure, having been featured in many magazines; I think I first got the suite from a Maximum PC disc. Still, a site like FileHippo would be good exposure for PA, and I fail to see how more is in any way less.

    yeah, filehippo is a good

    yeah, filehippo is a good site.

    Can you explain "file sharing site"?

    It is my understanding that FH.c is only a mirror/hosting site for popular applications. The fact that it is much more selective than, softpedia, brothersoft, etc, is what attracts me to it. Sure they host programs that are gnutella based (like Limewire, Cabos, Frostwire, etc, all of these I will never use again, and preach that it is a sin to use them!), but they have much more to offer.

    I am going to add to my OP FH.c's stated purpose and guarantee.

    Limits are for people with no imagination.


    Again, we have portable torrent programs on this site, so that isn't a problem. Emulators, too. Neither emulators nor file sharing programs are illegal in and of themselves, which is why they're probably allowed, so it would hardly be logical to fault a freeware site for doing the same.

    At any rate, is there any indication FileHippo will take any portable software? They could have a whole section on portability, really. They just need permission from JTH and PA.c.

    Statistics also

    Another reason why we don't like extra mirrors (John has said it that bluntly once or twice) is because it ruins statistics.

    Additionally, it's best to get a good solid reputation with one company than scatter it around. On a philosophical note especially concerning whether people will want to use it, sites like may be reputable, but its name is not the sort that inspires confidence in it. We want users to have that confidence.

    I am a Christian and a developer and moderator here.

    “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” – Proverbs 15:1

    This additional mirror wouldn't be a problem

    FH.c wouldn't create a numbers problem at SourceForge (SF). I've just noticed that for some software (mostly Apple applications), clicking download takes you to the app's download page.

    JTH could require that FH.c take the user to SF downloads. Even better, if we experience any problems with SF downloads, we have an alternate mirror. The best part, with permission from FH.c, we might be allowed to use their/modify their update checker! I know an updater/update-notifier is planned in the 2.0 PA.c menu, but this could be a simpler alternative.

    Limits are for people with no imagination.


    Chris may be reputable, but its name is not the sort that inspires confidence in it. We want users to have that confidence.

    Because hippos are slow, ugly, lazy creatures? *looks them up on YouTube* Well, maybe they're just ugly. But you see how much confidence that one hippo thought it had until it met what the narrator calls the "Beach master"... Yeah, hippos may be ugly, but you don't want to mess with one. When I think hippo, I think ugly, strong, and fearsome. I wouldn't say I'm afraid of them, but I've got a pretty good idea of what they can do. Even crocs and gators know to leave them alone.

    Just saying.

    That may just be the most

    That may just be the most out-of-left-field post I've ever seen. Sticking out tongue Smiling

    Come on, the thread was only

    Come on, the thread was only 6 months old before being reactivated. I've seen worst, much worst. Dead threads need to be closed to prevent arbitrary reactivation. Unfortunately it's a manual process and nobody has the time.


    Not me

    To be fair guys, I didn't reactivate the thread. And I do agree that old threads should be locked, and it's not a manual process if you set it up to be done automatically. This is trivial on some platforms; worst case scenario John's got to add a "module" but I would imagine he's got more important things to worry about than fine tuning the forum at this point.

    My last post was a joke. Someone else revived the dead topic. I wasn't trying to change Chris's mind. He and John have good reasons to only push releases through one channel. We may not agree with them but it's John's call.

    It seems to me it comes down to exposure vs. statistics. We don't even know if wants to host the apps. If they did, it would be a moot point because they're open source; I think they could just take them. Not sure on that though. On the other side, has a good amount of exposure. Maximum PC has promoted them a few times (that's what got me here, so you can thank them for that) and I'm sure similar publications have as well. I asked who uses portable apps over on Ars Technica's forums and not one person asked what that meant, and a few said they use Firefox Portable in certain situations, so PA.c's hardly an unknown.

    OK... OK...

    The choice is up to JTH, but its not a choice if he doesn't know about it.

    Limits are for people with no imagination.

    FH.c could make financial sense now

    There was another topic (unable to locate it) where I read someone wanted PA.c to provide "cloud-like" service for apps, as in you download the app and it runs as-is without extracting/installing. It was obvious that this is not what PA.c is out to accomplish and the bandwidth would be prohibitive. But I wondered: how many other people fail to use PA.c as a portable solution and just download apps to each terminal? Status Update (2011-04-17), Financial Update:

    As mentioned before, bandwidth costs continue to grow and the need for additional hardware presents itself, the additional funds are definitely going to help. In terms of monthly unique visitors, we're closing in on the likes of BoingBoing, SlashDot and similar sites and the hosting costs are reflecting that. Currently, we're covering the additional overhead from personal funding sources.

    I read these and wondered how much of PA.c traffic is from people downloading freeware apps that can't be hosted on SF. An alternative to financially supporting more bandwidth is to send that bandwidth else where. I know Piriform, creator of the popular app CCleaner, does this.

    While new methods of getting revenue are always good--I aim to buy a PA.c branded shirt and a flash drive or two--possibly free methods ought to be considered because it'll maximize the revenue generated once implemented.

    How much bandwidth, thus cost for bandwidth, is spent hosting freeware apps on PA.c? Is there a cost to host on FH.c? I don't have a number for the first question. I doubt there are costs based on Adobe, Apple, and Microsoft products there.

    Limits are for people with no imagination.