I'm debating switching the Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition installer over to a live installer. It's multilingual and able to download the appropriate locale of Firefox based on installer language and get the appropriate files out for use. The launcher picks the appropriate supported language to show in as well based on installed locale of the ones we support for the launcher (or English if in a locale Firefox supports but the launcher doesn't) for messages like "Firefox is already running...", etc. All the downloads would be MD5 checked for completeness based on an update I have ready for the PA.c Installer as well.
I also have prepared the ability for our auto-builder to build all the languages that Firefox supports that we can then make available for download on an All Languages page the same way Firefox does now. It can also build the update for the updater database with MD5s of the completed/signed installers. We'd still have separate English, French, etc installers just as we do now, but all of them.
In terms of having a multilingual installer, the pros are that it's a nice single download for all users, so no having to hunt for language. And it'd decrease the size of our updater database download a bit. Firefox when there are 2 versions (standard and test) available in all languages individually (instead of a single multilingual installer) will be 18K in the updater database for all the download links and MD5 sums. When we switch Thunderbird to it, it will as well. Same with SeaMonkey. When using the universal installer, it's under 1K for Firefox's 2 listings. It would also decrease the build time for each new release of Firefox Portable. The disadvantage, of course, is that you'll need to redownload Firefox each time you install Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition from Mozilla's servers.
In terms of the individual installers, it's one download and then you have it to install as you like, which is a nice advantage. So, it'd work just as it always has for all languages. The disadvantage being that preparing the builds will take a couple hours for each Firefox release now that we'll support more languages and the larger updater DB as well as users needing to download the right language.
Now, we can go either way. Our license agreement with Mozilla allows us to bundle or live download. And the PA.c Updater/app store in the platform will work with either version and the download size will be very similar between the two (one larger download vs two smaller ones that total about the same size). So I'm looking for thoughts from other folks on this we may do this with the 6.0 release, but more than likely we'll do some testing with the new installer and updater before either launching all languages as separate downloads or doing a universal installer.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on BlueSky
which doesn't really count. I dislike live installers as I then have to be in front of the computer to allow exceptions through my firewall. I prefer the one package that just downloads and installs....But hey what ever works for the majority works for me
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.” Dr. Seuss
If you use the PA.c Updater, you do this one time for all apps being updated as all downloads now occur within a single process for all live installers being updated.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
"I prefer the one package that just downloads and installs." But then again, I am not the one who has to do the work putting this stuff together so whatever is easiest on you Mr. Haller.
It's going to be a little more work than it is now either way, though uploading and mirroring will be easier as multlingual. The bigger deal will be saving 54k on the updater db that will be auto downloaded by users on each platform launch (by default).
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I'd say go with an online installer.
What I dont fully understand is you sentence: "We'd still have separate English, French, etc installers just as we do now, but all of them."
Does that mean we will still have an english one besides a multilingual one?
Another idea: What about an online installer for all languages and an english only one as most users are english for those who don’t want to be forced to have an internet connection open on upgrade?
Would it too have the possibility to download the normal firefox installer and place it next to it for offline installs?
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
I updated the post to clarify the confusing bit. We'd likely not do individual installers at all to avoid confusion. The standard ff installer can be manually downloaded and placed next to it for offline installs.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
the problem is not existing if all people just want the one and latest version only.
Problem could start when some users want or need some older versions, have them archived somewhere and then install them even if this version is not any more the latest.
But if the life installer allows me also to download and install some old versions of some app, well then half ok, it makes it just difficult to keep older versions in own local archive.
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
The live installer always downloads a specific file. If the downloaded file is versioned (like Mozilla apps) there will be no problem. Otherwise (like with µTorrent) it will download the latest installer.
@John: what about adding a command-line switch to the installer making it download and keep the files in its own folder?
Previously known as kAlug.
I had to install TB5 instead the current TB6, as some for me essential extension is not avai for TB6.
With life installer, I might run into problems, as this might pick the latest from the source server and not the older one.
If however I could place the life installer with the original installer in one folder and just run the portable life installer and this will properly pick the file next to it instead of the one on the web, then it could work also for older versions well.
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
As long as the downloaded file has a different name in each version (as most apps AFAIK).
Previously known as kAlug.
I prefer the current method of downloading a multilingual or language-specific application with everything in it. Two benefits of the current formula over live installs:
- It is easy to download many applications at once and then install them afterwards without little or no intervention whatsoever.
– It means less stuff to download when I download or update stuff for me, my wife and my daughters. Even at this time, I don't let huge applications like GIMP and LibreOffice use the autoupdater because downloading them four times uses a lot of bandwidth.
Michel Gagnon
Montréal (Québec, Canada)
There, someone had to say it.
Portable apps should be portable across a collection of computers
regardless of an accessible pipeline to wherever the actual files are
kept.
Live installers undo evaluation of new versions and encourage a update
fever, willy-nilly, without thought or decision.
Deliberately choosing to install a preferred earlier version will, eventually,
become impossible.
Not everything Google does is worth emulating.
Of course, I could be all wrong and I might become happy if I drink the Kool-Aid.
p.s. cloud based imitations of old dumb terminal, main server systems from the 1970s
are also evil.
curmudgeon
You can go back and install old versions of Google Chrome Portable without issue. And we have them all available on SourceForge for your downloading and nostalgic pleasure. I just installed Google Chrome Portable 8 to try it out and it worked fine. The Firefox Portable live installer would work the same way.
If you're so inclined, you can keep both all the files needed on-hand for installing a live installer later as well. In Firefox Portable's case, you'd just have to download Firefox Setup 6.0.exe from Mozilla.com and place it in the same directory as FirefoxPortable_6.0_online.paf.exe and then run the paf.exe. Instead of downloading, it'll use the package sitting right next to it. So you can archive multiple versions for later use if you're so inclined.
Needless to say, most people don't require either functionality and just download, install and delete anyway, so having a live installer makes no real difference for them. But for folks who wish to do the above, both options are there and will remain.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
What I care about is being able to bring a usb stick to an environement that is segregated from the interent and to be able to install some really great softwares without violating that chinese wall between a net that needs to be isolated from the general, wide open, internet environment.
That's all. On line installers make that effort pointless.
I know you have a huge workload I would not like to undertake, but the idea of self-contained apps that can be transportable across security boundaries is a very good idea.
thanks for all the work
And that is unchanged. You can download and install it before you enter, just as before. Or download the online installer and the appropriate Firefox install and keep it with you to install as you'd like. Once installed, the app behaves as normal. If you have the appropriate Firefox install with the online installer, it won't go online at all. In that respect it is unchanged from before and has no additional issue in the environment you reference.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Does this apply the same for Thunderbird?
I used to really hate live installers, but I've warmed up to them over the last couple years. At times I wonder why I even have a software library on my storage drive anymore.
So I'm fine with live installers, but I have a better idea, I think, but of course, it may be too ambitious: Launcher installer. You package the Portable Firefox launcher and that's it. Launcher installs, makes all the right directories and whatnot (assuming it's not an upgrade) and then it launches the launcher, which checks for an update (e.g. 6.0 against 0.0 or no install) and then updates. So every time you launch the app you get an update check. This could be disabled at the platform level as you're already disabling the splash screens at the platform level. The other upside to this is you then have a PortableApps Platform download that is the usual size plus the size of all the launchers of the most common apps. Upon first run, they install and the user always gets the latest version. Or they can be removed, e.g. you can tell the user that the app is not installed, and ask to install or remove icon.
as it means you need the platform and probably the current version of it etc.
I think all apps should work standalone too.
Also all this full automatic update, hmmm, no , do not like it too much. It may then destroy many functions automatically.
I had just to kick out the TB6 as some to me important addons do not work with it. Sp automatic update without user interaction, definitely not my taste.
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
Having the Platform is the point. It's the cornerstone of the PortableApps ecosystem. I don't use the Platform at home, though I do have some PortableApps apps. However, I have it "installed", there's just no real reason to have it open. I have other means to launch the apps that are more integrated with my desktop.
All apps do work standalone if you mean without the Platform. That's why they're portable. They're completely modular with the exception of LibreOffice which has a couple restrictions (strictly limited to folder-path length).
We already have full update, don't we? Every time I've updated my PortableApps apps, I have to download the whole installer. There's no partial update that I have seen.
I also disagree with update without user interaction.