As many of you know, we're starting to allow 3rd party open source and freeware publishers to package in PortableApps.com Format and will soon allow commercial publishers to do the same. The goal being to make as wide an array of software available on our open source / free / open platform as possible so that we'll never have to worry about a vendor-locked portable platform again. This does raise the question, though, of how to list this new software and distinguish it in the applications directory. So, I've created a poll:
https://portableapps.com/polls/how_to_display_freeware_and_commercial_so...
Please respond and feel free to comment here.
Thanks!
John
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
Although I'm for the ability of freeware and commercial developers to officially support PortableApps I will choose for Open Source apps any-day due to some disappointing experiences with 'freeware' in the past.
For commercial software I use some applications but not that many as I don't have a budget for software. In this light I do not want Commercial applications to push over Open Source applications. I don't hope to see to many Commercial applications listed prominent between the Open Source applications. But I'm positive on supporting commercial apps, if you know what I mean.
Also commercial applications demanding that other (free or open source) applications should not be supported would give me a negative feeling.
Personally I would like 3 separate lists preferably emphasizing Open Source products.
A configurable list with just open source visible by default. You can switch to view free or commercial apps, but open source only should be the default.
This isn't an option as many users would think we don't have as many apps or don't have their favorite freeware app (example: Skype, Winamp, etc) because they'll just see the default list. Those of us who care about open source (like us) know what it is and can easily switch to just view that. But we don't want to limit the platform or format's acceptance or use by forcing an open-source-only view on people. Ideally, we keep them all side by side and let folks discover the usefulness and benefits of open source as they use the platform and the different types of software without being too forceful with it.
The suite, of course, will remain open source. As will the menu, backup utility, update utility, launchers, installer, appcompactor, etc.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
but when users see prominent freeware apps first, they never try the open-source alternatives. If you don't show the freeware apps by default, users will check/use the open-source apps first.
Alright John, because it's not an option for you, I'm switching to the opinion of LOGAN-Portable. 3 separate lists. Far better than a big list with all.
I voted against a configurable list simply because I think many users will filter out freeware and commercial apps right away and not even bother to see what there is outside of open source. Understandably, people will filter out commercial apps, but there is a lot of proprietary freeware is that is very good (e.g. foobar2000, ImgBurn) that people will block out.
Vintage!
Why use freeware when there's a equal Open Source alternative?
There isn't always one. IMO, for example, ImgBurn is the best at what it does out of all apps (open-source, freeware or commercial). Open source projects are usually the best, but there are some freeware programs that are just simply superior to their open-source (and commercial) counterparts. It's never good to limit oneself to any one category, no matter which one it is. Every app deserves a chance.
Vintage!
From a persona non grata, I'd like to observe that the proposal is for open source, freeware and commercial apps to be listed if they comply with PAF packaging requirements.
It says NOTHING about the requirement to be "portable" by any current definition.
If I may be so bold, that's the exact thing that everybody here says about everybody else in the portable community - programs you get at any other web sites aren't really portable.
Is the intent to abandon portability certification in favor of appealing to more people?
Shame, shame, shame.
Signed,
A nobody
neutron1132 (at) usa (dot) com
In order to use the PortableApps.com Installer, an app must conform to PortableApps.com Format. Part of the PortableApps.com Format specification is that the app must be portable and not permanently alter anything on the local PC as well as our other standard restrictions:
https://portableapps.com/development/portableapps.com_format#hostpc
If the app doesn't comply with the PAF spec, they can't use the PA.c Installer.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
will be the big concern for me. As long as you and the other top folks clean out the registry/temp files and adjust the paths, I'm fine with 3 lists.
Maybe have different splashes though for OS, Freeware and Commercial so it is differentiated.
Maj. Eaton: We have top men working on it now.
Indiana: Who?
Maj. Eaton: Top... men
Don't be an uberPr∅. They are stinky.
The installer isn't open source?
Edit - I don't think that's relevant to this thread so I've moved my comment from here to right over here
Just have a tag at the end that says [Freeware] or [commercial]
And by the way imgburn sucks. I could only get it working on one of the five computers I tried it on. And the one I did get it working on it always failed. I tried infrarecorder and it worked on all of them.
Thanks,
Bensawsome
iLike Macs, iPwn, However you put it... Apple is better ^_^
"Claiming that your operating system is the best in the world because more people use it is like saying McDonalds makes the best food in the world..."
I really think that both together would be the best. I would have a filterable list with icons for payware, freeware, and OSS. Perhaps exclude the icons if only OSS is selected because there is only one type.
cowsay Moo
cowthink 'Dude, why are you staring at me.'
I've been considering that during the day as I read some of the feedback. I'll need to come up with some simple icons to make it clear. I already have permission from OSI to use a 16x16 version of their logo if we want.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
You'll get a flood of commercial SPAM dumped onto portableapps.
Do you really want crippleware?!! Or "freeware" which is just a 30 day trial version of some product?
Keep things strictly open source, then everyone can join in...
While everyone will be free to package in PA.c format by following the specs, we can pick and choose the apps listed on here. It'll never be everything. And we're talking about real freeware. Things like Irfanview, XNview, IcoFx, etc. Trialware will be specifically listed as trialware.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Yes - that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking.
But how do you define "real" freeware?
As another poster pointed out (in a very long post!) there's freeware, and there's freeware.
Taking a little step back though - I think I may have overreacted a little earlier (and maybe even in that last sentance!)
atm, there's no real incentive for a commercial software producer to create a portableapps.com version.
Why bother? Unless it's established as a way of selling software - or generating profit in some other way (e.g. publishing a "lite" crippleware version as an advert) - there's little point in wasting the development time doing a portableapps.com version.
Instead, I can see freeware software gaining more of a foothold.
Thinking more about it - this is actually a REALLY GOOD THING!
Why? Because the only people who'll create a portableapps.com version are enthusiasts!
Since noone's going to spend time implementing a portableapps version of a software program they don't like, this will act as a natural "filter" - which actually means that by allowing freeware (non-opensource software) being listed on portableapps.com, only good - USEFUL - freeware will make it here!
...Which means that the number of applications people want will actually go UP!
I'm starting to actually like the idea now!
(At least, until it becomes popular enough to start selling software through portableapps.com)
Note - in that last comment, I didn't mean portableapps.com isn't popular - it certainly is, but there's no commercial applications being sold through it, so no "bandwagon" for commerical software producers to jump on atm.
If you see what I mean.
Incidently, since when exactly did portableapps "allow" 3rd party software to package in portableapps format?
IT'S OPEN SOURCE! By definition, IT'S NOT LIKE YOU HAVE MUCH OF A CHOICE AFTER RELEASING IT!!!!
Your comment sounds like you want people to think and treat portableapps as an open, community, project - reaping all the benefits from doing so - but actually you want it closed off, your own little toy - and not an open project.
If you'd check up on the licensing and trademarks, you'd know that everything we do is open source. And you can't combine that with closed source (like freeware and commercialware) without a proper license. That's what we're doing.
Now is there some reason that you're so antagonistic in nearly every post you make here?
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
NOOOOOOOoooo!
Tagging packages with a silly little icon will achieve NOTHING!
Any icon you display will be ignored by everyone looking at a big massive list.
If anything keep them as separate lists, and let the users decide what they want from differnt lists; that would make it clear.
Alternativly - and perhaps even better - if you want them all in one big list, make sure commercial - and this does include shareware and crippleware advertised as "free" software - aren't displayed by default, making the user has to explicitly select an option to show them.
I have to ask - with all this talk of commercial programs - are you looking to sell out and just cash in on the community success of portablapps.com?
After all, if you're listing commercial software, it's pretty obvious you're looking to get some kind of kickback from it. Perhaps you should start by sticking ads all over the WWW site?
ISTM you're facing a slippery slope, and thinking "I wonder how fast I can go down this?"...
Slow down and breathe please.
Nobody here is selling out. Cashing in, maybe, but certainly not selling out. The PortableApps.com Platform, Installer and launchers always have been and always will be open source under the GPL.
John (this site's creator and lead developer) has been working with commercial vendors on several deals (to improve his financial status through this site) and working to adapt the license our applications use to enable commercial and freeware applications to use our format and specifications.
With this model in place, PortableApps.com is no longer limited to open source software, the site can earn some money to stay up and running, and we can attract many more users to portability.
Anyone will be able to use our specifications, but only John and the few other site administrators here can update the official list of apps on this site. Applications will not be added until they've been tested, and verified by our admins.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
First off, please take a step back and breath before your next post so you're not bolding and capitalizing every other word. Relax. The world is a better place when you do
Second, locking freeware and commercial software out is an exceedingly bad idea. Those of us who prefer open source software are a small but growing group, but there are lots of people that like all sorts of software. Even though we could grow to a certain size on just open source stuff, many software publishers and the hardware publishers want more and will find a way to do it. And, chances are, it will be another closed, proprietary system that locks you into specific hardware. That's something we absolutely don't want.
Third, if I were just in this for a quick payout, I would have sold it off already to a major flash drive manufacturer so it could be locked to their hardware only (yes, I have been asked... more than once). Or I would have started out as payware, charging $30 a pop like a major angel investor (and multi-millionaire) had advised me to do. He said I could be a millionaire in a year or so doing that. I told him I wanted to keep it open source and free. He said you could probably work it into a 'lifestyle business' (meaning you can make a living off it) with a few years of hard work. I said, that works for me.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Eventually I hope the users can easily select a list excluding for example Open Source if not only for the fact that the list of mixed apps might get huge and cumbersome to browse through.
I'm glad you didn't sell the suite, but don't forget, even if a commercial flash drive manufacturer can branch this into a closed platform, the GPL is still valid for current releases and would be branched. Besides I'm sure some vendors would like to supply their hardware with Open Source applications as well as the would make money off the drives and the platform would give their drives a extra value.
Asking 30$ a pop might seem nice but the number of users would decline as many of us don't have the possibility to pay for it even if we wanted. Also previous releases could and probably would branch into a new GPL. But you probably would have made some bucks but not as much as every current user would bought it, thats just not realistic. And making money from a platform that's crammed with 99% of open source is like earning money from things people made available for free. It probably would have been frowned upon by the open source community. Notwithstanding the possible closed source + open source combination you and others have expressed criticism about. (And imagine all the 'developers' preparing the portable apps for free and you earning from it would also be weird)
I guess you'll ask some license money from commercial software to allow them to use the launcher/installer and platform in general. I guess thats one of the few things to make money from. But I surely hope these things will go though well for you and that you don't spend to much time for free on preparing portability for for commercial products so the Open Source releases will going on strong in the future. (Example my Miranda warns me often that there's a new version).
Good luck and hopefully Portable Apps will finally be open for all people soon so it finally can take off as it should!
The argument used for going closed source (don't forget, this was when I initially launched the menu which I didn't have to release as GPL) was if you're making ad money off of 5 million users of around a penny each over a few years (averaged out, assuming a few clicks here and there), you'd just about be able to afford paying for hosting. Forget about making a living or keeping the lights on or anything. But if you charge $30, even if only 1% of those 5 million are still interested, that's $1.5 million... and then you sell it off to a USB manufacturer.
So the profit argument wasn't about expanding the platform, or keeping it open, or ensuring that no vendor could get a monopoly in the portable software market... it was solely about money. It doesn't matter that you lose 99% of your customers. Or that you become another closed source small-time solution. Or that some other company controls the market. And, financially, it makes perfect sense.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Guys, we all have our own opinions & preferences for open source versus freeware etc. but please don't make the mistake of trying to force your opinions onto someone else! Let them choose for themselves. The comments that I saw stating that open source programs are always better are also silly - why not have a user rating system for each program in a similar manner to other sites. This rating should be based on the softwares capability. So I say - One list for all.
User votes sound cool but some commercial companies do gerillia marketing, and can pollute the results by having their employees posing as regular users of the software voting and posting positive comments.
At least have an option to show different categories. Because I dont have money or means to invest even in the coolest and cheapest of commercial software atm.
My preference would be a single list that can be filtered by license type (as in FLOSS, Freeware, Payware with icons), category and rating. However ratings should only be given by registered users and if any companies are caught unfairly influencing their product through the rating system then John can send them a warning to stop otherwise he will withdraw their license to use the platform. Of course there would need to be some jazz about this in the license agreement to ensure that John wouldn't need to refund any wrong doers. Oh and the ability to submit user reviews in the style of download.com would be great. Beyond that its all good
PortableApps.com Advocate
However ratings should only be given by registered users and if any companies are caught unfairly influencing their product through the rating system then John can send them a warning to stop otherwise he will withdraw their license to use the platform
You seem to be a little confused.
Portableapps plugs itself as being open source software.
This mean that guess what!
SHOCK! HORROR!
John doesn't get to "withdraw" licences from anyone.
If you don't understand this, you clearly HAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD the nature of this type of software.
If someone's doing something with portableapps.com that you don't like - TOUGH.
That's just part and parcel of being open - you don't get to discriminate against anyone.
If companies distort ratings to boost their product and/or down their rivals (FLOSS,Freeware or Commerical) then I think John is well within his rights to pull their app from the PortableApps.com site and deny them the use of trademarks etc associated with the platform. As I understand it, yes they can use the code as long as they follow the GPL however they cannot call it a PortableApp. That is a trademark owned by John.
Similar to being able to modify/use the code for Firefox without restriction (under the terms of the GPL) but not being able to call it Firefox without the permission of Mozilla. I may have mixed my terms saying withdraw the license rather than withdraw permissions. Also I don't think this would need to be done much it would be more a preventative measure. At least I hope it would not ever be required.
Can someone with more knowledge in the area please confirm if this is correct. This is my understanding though I know licensing is a complicated business so wouldn't mind being corrected
PortableApps.com Advocate
Also I don't think this would need to be done much it would be more a preventative measure. At least I hope it would not ever be required.
Kinda like the policy about people pulling a "hey check out this awesome *cough* (my) app I *found*"... yeah, I doubt it would be necessary as well but I agree it would be a good safeguard.
Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.
It's my opinion that the whole application list should be switched to using CCK, Contemplate (or similar) and Views for it all; I envision a way that you could just have each page being a title, version number, file reference, filesize, and other details as on the app page, and then build the directory list out of those things, and so forth. That'd also make it more immune to minor errors, like for example when the German JkDefrag page showed 3.36 on the button and everywhere else, but still linked to 3.34 (reported in IRC by a helpful user who noted it :-)). If you want more details of what I'm suggesting I can provide them, but I expect that you get the gist of what I'm suggesting.
(I voted for the configurable list because that's most in line with what I'm suggesting. It's straightforward doing such filtering with Views and possibly a helper module.)
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
I'm already working on using CCK. And making it handle the updater file, too.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
That was something I'd thought of too, just forgot to mention it in my spiel.
I'm willing to help on any Drupal stuff if you want.
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
I know the problem (as I used to do most of the german site updates) but I hope that gets better once Drupals site translation module will be up and running...
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
To most successfully appeal to the most people, I believe by default the apps menu should list everything, but identified by the license. At the bottom, a line with a link or two for each one. Like "PortableApps.com recommends "Open Source software"; here's "why"." where "Open Source software" links to one page on OSI, and "why" links to another. Following that would be a link saying "Show only open source". For Freeware, it might say ""Freeware applications" are a launcher only, "click here" to read about the differences." where "Freeware applications would link to a page about the difference between free to use personally, and free to alter/redistribute (a page on OSI?) and "click here" would go to a page talking about live installers. And so on.
Then, in a user's account here, they could set their display preferences.
Or... something like that.
;-)That sounds pretty good - except for the default you're suggesting.
Let's be honest here.
Nobody actually cares about opensource software - except geeks!
Shocking? If you think so, you badly need to get out into the real world more!
The overwhelming majority of the population (99%+!) CAN'T WRITE COMPUTER SOFTWARE.
Got the source available? So what?! Yes, personally, I understand what this means - but most users don't care - free software is free software, end of discussion. They're not paying for it, it works, and that's all that counts.
If you default to listing everything, you'll end up plugging crippleware and other "free" software programs.
I'd recommend making the default opensource software (as the portableapps.com suite is) and then give the user the option of showing freeware and commercial apps should they so wish to see it.
But I know a lot of people who albeit they cant write software, they prefer Open Source programs over freeware. They know that, because its open source, there are more people who can look at the source code and understand it than there are people who can look at the source code of closed source programs.
So they understand (one of) the benefits and use/prefer it because of that.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
Actually jamcomm has a good point with that argument. I'm one of the people you mentioned - not someone you know, maybe, except through this site - but I fit the description regardless, though I have dabbled in some code. Still, I can't write software; that much is true.
In defense of your position however, the reason someone (me) who can't write software prefers open source, it's not just about the number of people who can see the source. It's the very idea that if the developer is not meeting expectations, a better developer can come in and take over. In theory, anyway. Like the R34 mod. If you really want categories/folders and cannot accept that the official menu hasn't got them, that is the way to go. Linux is the best example. How many distros are there? My first serious try was Red Hat 7. Then I tried Fedora Core 3 and then 4. From there, Ubuntu. At some point I had Lindows and Linspire, but let's not talk about that...
;)Anyway, there are many others available.PS - Albeit is one of my favorite tools in the English language to twist words into a succinct point and cover all bases efficiently. The word you wanted was although. Albeit does mean although, in a way, but it's got to be at the end, like an afterthought, I guess. It really doesn't have a place in that sentence, even at the end. It's like e.g. and i.e., they're similar but have exclusive places where the other just does not fit. But neither transgression is as bad as per say [sic].
First of all, thank you for paying intention to user's wishes
From the first time I heared about OpenSource, I really liked :
- the concept of sharing effort/ideas/skills for good of all
- the possibility to feel confident about my personnal information
- all of this without loosing any quality
It could be interesting to open portable application directory to shareware/commercial product which could be better alternative [if there is any opensource alternative :)]
But what about trust ? Can I register personnal information in freeware ? Will you check/validate applications ?
We'll be checking the software for bad stuff as it is posted and then posting the MD5 sum of the version and package we check so you can double-check it for bad things (and our updater/app installer will do the same thing). For entering information, you'll need to judge for yourself the company behind it, as always.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
On some project page (all for now ?), I've seen an OSI Certified logo. Maybe this icon/text could appear in the software directory ?
1. It creates a visible differences between OpenSource / Other software for the one who care (I'm one of them)
2. The "Certified" word could be attractive for the one who don't care about OpenSource.
I mean, maybe someone won't care about OpenSource but could choose the "OSI Certified" one instead of the commercial one because "Certified" looks "better".
"OSI Certified" just indicates that a valid OSI-approved license is used and properly followed. Unfortunately it makes no indication as to the quality of the app... but yes, as is well known in the marketing world, buzz-words such as **-certified" do get people's attention. And also, John indicated earlier in the thread that he already has permission to use the OSI logo if that's how he chooses to go
Personally I like the idea of icon overlays on the list as well.
Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.
I prefer the configurable list.
However, one problem I have with many sites that list free programmes is that they often confuse 30-day trials with real freeware (i.e. software that works for life without using a credit card)
Michel Gagnon
Montréal (Québec, Canada)
Trial software is commercial software with a trial period and will be listed as such. Freeware means free, no time-based limitations.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
There's more to it than that - crippleware, for example.
"Pay $999 for the full version! Alternativly use our FREE FREE FREE "Lite" version!"
"No restrictions! Just download and use!"
"Completely free and unrestricted! Get $500 worth of software for FREE!"
"(Admittedly it doesn't have a tenth the functionality of our $999 version, but it gets our product onto everyone's "free software" list, makes our product show up when people search for "free software", and makes a good advert for us..)"
I think you hit it on the nail.
In my humble opinion, there is a difference between a "light" version which is real freeware and a crippled version. Sometimes, in spite of its limitations, the "light" version may indeed be just what I need and I might be very happy to use that. But some light versions are a delight to use whereas others are not.
In a nutshell, a light version is acceptable and may be advertised that way if:
– Limits are readily known
– There are no key functions missing: not being able to save, for instance, is NOT acceptable
– It should not expire.
– It won't nag me to upgrade to the commercial version when I open or close the software, or even on a monthly basis. I don't mind having a link in the "About XXX" box, because that's one I open when I want it.
Michel Gagnon
Montréal (Québec, Canada)
Open source, as you probably know, is generally considered the most free license. You can use, you can modify, you can redistribute, and the caveats are few and far between. (Mozilla is a strange exception which mixes trademarks in, but these rules apply to them if you just change the name and take out the logo.)
Freeware is, as you say, free to use, but it's not free to redistribute without permission, and without the source, it can't be modified. But there are a few steps between freeware and commercial software.
Trialware and demoware are the same thing, and, as you and JTH say, it's commercial software that works for a limited period of time and then either stops working or reduces its features, or sabotages its output, e.g. with a watermark in case of image or video editing stuff.
Then there's nagware or begware, software that, like freeware, is always free, but asks for a donation or voluntary payment. This payment may or may not negate the nags or begging. It can have a subtle Donate link, or it can have a splash screen that stays up for several seconds begging for money before the program starts. WinZIP used to be nagware - it worked fine past its 30 days, but displayed Unregistered on the title bar and had nags scattered about. (Now I don't know what it is, I left it for a pirated WinRAR for a couple months before discovering 7-zip a couple years ago, and never looked back.)
And then you have... not sure there's a name for it yet. Liteware is what I call it. You can use the Lite version for free indefinitely, but a Pro version is available, and the software will remind you of this from time to time, so it's like nagware, but not quite as intrusive. AVG Antivirus and ZoneAlarm are both great examples, and both will let you have the full version for free if you sign up for trial offers and scam your friends into doing so via referrals (TrialPay service).
Then there are apps that are commercial, straight up, no two ways about it. Microsoft Windows for example. Nevermind that the betas and release candidates are free (well, released as trialware) and they give copies away (e.g. testers who submitted at least one bug report in the Vista betas reportedly got a free copy of Ultimate when it went RTM or retail), there's no proper demo or trialware version.
Lastly there's adware, free software which includes spyware or adware piggybacked with the installer. Some are optional (e.g. DAEMON Tools Lite) and some are not (e.g. KaZaA, I can't think of a more recent example) and some you can't remove the adware or spyware without crippling the software. But this is bad practice and has no place on any kind of civilized website, it's often just as bad or worse than warez. At least a pirated copy of Photoshop won't blast you with ads or sell your browsing habits and email contacts to spammers. CyDoor, a spyware program included with KaZaA, did that and more.
Now, all that being said, I would like to see a door open for commercial vendors to use PAF and even offer their demos here, but the problem with that is that the DRM they use to ensure that their paid customers don't see nag screens and that their demo customers are complying with the timed/limited demo is often not portable. They will probably have to make two entirely different packages: a demo installer and a full installer. And then the time limit problem still exists. But if they can get around that so their app is still portable and non-intrusive, I think it should have a place, as long as the caveats are made clear.
Adware/Spyware should obviously never have a place here. Liteware is fine as long as it's actually useful without having to buy the Plus or Pro version. FoxyProxy does this, too, now that I think about it. Nagware/Begware should be avoided; maybe they can take the nags out of the program and a donate link can be added to the app's page? Like, as a compromise? But I don't think a site is doing its public image any favors if its apps beg for donations at every turn.
That was a long post!
But you're pretty much right:
adware
commercial software (i.e. pay to get it)
crippleware
shareware
demo versions
freeware
opensource
postcardware
free software (FOSS, not COST)
...the list just goes on.
One thing I'm not sure I agree with you on - if you're going to let commercial software companys advertise here (because that's what we're talking about when discussing commercial software products being listed here) - why not let adware in?
Why discriminate between software which is free (i.e. no cost to the user) which shows animated adverts when it runs, and software which the user has to fork over $200 for?
Surely this is the users decision to make?
Certainly offer opensource software first, and only show adware, etc if the user explicitly asks for it - but why ban it from the site completely?
Yeah, sorry about that.
Yeah, I forgot about EditPad Lite. Does any other freeware ask for postcards? Ironically, I used EditPad quite loyally for years and never sent the guy a postcard. I've since moved across the country. Should I get a postcard from California and send him one of each?
First of all, adware and spyware should not be let in specifically because they do damage to the computer and its owner, and it would be grossly negligent to plug your flash drive into somebody's computer and run spyware. That would border on sabotage, and if you did it at work, your employer would be well within their rights to fire you on the spot. Like I said, adware and spyware are worse than warez.
As for companies advertising here, what's the difference? OpenOffice is advertised here. But... I know, OpenOffice is free. If Microsoft were to get up with JTH & PA and say hey, we want to put MS Office in PAF, and we're willing to pay - you'd have a Microsoft Office demo side by side with OpenOffice. That doesn't look good for Microsoft. Pay hundreds of dollars for our product, or get OpenOffice for free. It isn't the best analogy, but I think the point makes itself.
Because the former, more often than not, is a bad product. The latter isn't. And here's the difference: A program that people are paying for up front has funding. Usually a bit of it. When you get paid for something, you tend to care about it. Tend to do things right. Unless you get comfortable, get a monopoly, have a name like Microsoft... but that's just one possible exception. On the other hand, if people are downloading a program without paying for it under false pretenses, and it's nagging at them to pay or, as you say, an animated ad, that tends to leave a bad taste in peoples' mouths. If making money for the publisher becomes the program's primary purpose, it tends to come before the quality of the work the program is supposed to do, what got it downloaded in the first place. Not all nagware is bad (see WinZIP 6-7) and there are exceptions, but that's why I'd discriminate, as you put it.
I don't see anybody asking for adware, do you? Here are the three things the PA community wants the most, in no particular order: 1) Categories for the menu. 2) Theme support, or better theme support now. 3) Freeware included in the apps. At no point since I've been here have I seen anybody advocating, let alone asking for spyware. I've seen people ask for warez. Just a few days ago there was a topic asking for a portable MS Office.
I would agree with that statement if you replaced "adware" with "commercial software".
...However, the definition of "free" changes dramatically in the context of software, depending on whether you ask the average person on the street (i.e. it didn't cost me anything), or someone who works with Richard Stallman (i.e. you get a certain type of licence with it)
The latter forming a small minority of the population.
Perhaps one soultion might be to have symbols or notes in the listing that indicates:
Open Source
Free Closed Source
Free Closed Source - Nagware
Commercial - Nagware
Commerical - Limited Time Demo
That might give most folks who have a concern about the various types of software a "heads up" on what they might download.
I'd prefer a "master list" and the ability to filter the list to show only one of the catagories.
When I look for software I don't look for open source or freeware or shareware etc, I look for software that will help me do a task or fix a problem. Antivirus, antispyware, CD burner, spread sheet, Internet access, etc. Once I get a listing of what's available then I choose what best fits my needs, one time use, to be shared, to be kept, etc.
Having to look 4 or more different groupings for an app would be annoying at best. So I agree a "master list" would be best, if organized by function, and if you have the time to add the ability to sort by source type that's fine. Although I would group them "free" for Open Source and freeware, and "pay" for shareware and commercial.
Ed
List open source and freeware. Freeware would be the new default since that's what most people know. Open Source would get the 16x16 OSI logo JTH says they gave him permission to use. That would get people curious and possibly interested.
Then, near the top, or bottom, "Filter" links to "Allow" listing of: Donationware (I like that better than nagware or begware, I think) and Commercial software.
I still believe adware and spyware has no place here for reasons previously mentioned. To further elaborate, I believe portability should mean leaving a computer as or better than you found it (better than = using CCleaner or something). It's just common courtesy. Someone does you a favor letting you use their machine, you don't want to make them regret it. Putting adware and spyware on their computer is a good way to make them regret it, and it doesn't help if that crap gets associated with PortableApps.com's good name.
I think "shareware" is more normally what "donationware" is, though you do get software humbly (or not so humbly) requesting that you help them out by donating, or sticking ads in.
Do remember that all software going in the official list will be verified by us. The site, and the content, and the application list, is moderated by PortableApps.com. They cannot get their obviously terrible software in without our checking it. As it matures, I would expect guidelines to formulate.
Another point for others to remember is that this is not "would you like to see freeware and commercial software appear in the PortableApps.com Applications Directory", but "how would you like to see freeware and commercial software appear in the PortableApps.com Applications Directory". We're going ahead with it, and we want users to see that we've got it - the default will be showing at least freeware apps, and commercial apps too I would expect - just with a note. It's just the technique that we're deciding on - and I think it's pretty clear that the filtering is the better and more popular choice, and it's just as easy to do it one way than the other with CCK and Views.
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
My use of PortableApps.com is solely to take my home environment with me to client sites. At home I use Macs and open source products; clients use PC, Windows and Microsoft Office.
Provided that the menu and the suite packaging never includes any freeware or commerical products, which implicitly would be Windows only, I'm agnostic as to whether other parties (open source, freeware or commerical) produce stuff that can be run from the PortableApps.com menu.
Like the menu, backup, upcoming updater, launchers and installers, the suite will remain a package of open source software. We may at some point in the future release another version of the suite with additional software in it (say, some best of the best freeware) but it will be a different suite and clearly marked as containing not just open source software.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I like the idea of a list filterable by category and license that defaults to a master list. If the current list contains more than just OSS, it would be nice to have a subtle indication of which apps are OSS (such as the 16x16 OSI logo displayed somewhere near the app name/logo).
I'm excited to see this moving forward and I hope opening up the spec to non-OSS will help things move forward with the hardware vendors as well
Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.
Hang on a minute!
I've just clicked the poll link and noticed the options it has!
wtf?!
We can only vote for a big list with icons, or a big list (which may as well have icons anyway), which can be filtered?!!
Talk about loading a survey to get the results you want!
Why do I get the feeling the decision's already been made, with a rigged poll to get the "community" to vote for it?
None of the other options people have suggested above have been taken into account!
but John has been saying he is already thinking about implementing some suggestions as the comments come along.
Maybe there will be a new poll next week.
Don't be an uberPr∅. They are stinky.
OK, I'm finally going to give in. jamcomm, could you please stop posting on here; you've been nothing but obnoxious, providing rude and unhelpful comments. If you don't want either of the options provided, don't vote. If you're not happy, we're not keeping you here. I rather suspect that you're also getting very close to having yourself banned.
Feel free to ask questions, suggest things, but the way you've been going on and on and on wastes space, is anti-social, unhelpful, distracts from the real question of the thread - how to do it, not whether to do it - and is just not nice.
The decision had probably (almost certainly) already been made for one of two or so options, John was just using this to gauge what others felt about the best way, so that it's not just him controlling it. I trust his intuition on most things to do with this site, and this case is no exception, with the logical way of doing it the one which he had preferred and what others have on average preferred as well.
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
I'm almost wetting my panties (size xxxxxxxxlarge boxers actually) at the thought of filling in any gaps in my portable software needs by the inclusion of freeware and commercial apps. Great idea. I can understand where the agro comes from haveing been involved in the whole 'what constitutes freeware' debate for years in alt.comp.freeware. People can get very passionate about things being other than what they seem or purport to be. THe very nature of this forum will ensure that anything untoward in commercial or freeware apps comes to light very quickly. I think PortableApps.com will become THE go-to-site to get the best software of any type! As long as all software is clearly marked and explanations are clearly given (for newbies) then I don't care how the lists are formatted however filtering would be nice.
just do tabs on the applications page
open source --- freeware --- commercial --- all
I prefer to use open source and free software. Its true that exists freewares that perform exceptionally well. And I use too. I don't limit myself and being flexible, I believe, is part of the idea of the open source initiative.
I use chess applications that are as good and in some tasks, better than its commercial counterparts. But, because some of them come from the linux world, the executable is hidden inside a 'bin' folder, making them inaccesible to the platform menu. Usually this applications are portable by nature, at least when ported to windows.
Having say these, I agre with Jhon's idea, for the following reasons:
1) Open source, free software, freeware and propietary ware, all of them will share the same platform. That initiative will ease actualizations and a way to blend those kind of applications under the same administration.
2) An integrating platform will allow a more sofisticated approach, without needing administrative permission to some tasks, like asingning programs to extensions, a common path for portable applications, criptography, etc.
3) This web site has been productive, alerting us on how some applications aren't portable. Sometimes, we may accept leving residuals fragments on the host, when privacy isn't a concern, but we must pressure ourselves to respect the host machine configuration. I believe that this website will become a common place to validate application's portability and dependencies.
4) An for those worried about propietary software, we must remember that they need some kind of copy protection, that a portable platform can hardly provide, except perhaps for digital serial numbers from the USB.
Denis Navas
Have we thought of having software distribution lists? Like apt-get sources, Ruby gem packaging sources, Eclipse update sources.
Come up with a structure for Update Sites, and have the Portable Base app, do the Download and install from registered sources. Many of the users in the forum claim to be non-technical or programmers, So why to give an option to download from a link and install it. Why not let the installer and updater link directly from the Portable apps with configurable source lists.
Current Portableapps also need to be classified as Current release, Stable release, Beta Test release, and let the users subscribe to the lists of their choice, with default pointed to the Stable release.
--
Shree
Currently this isn't going to happen. However, I'd like to see something very similar to this; I've written recently about it (Manta is going to be doing practically what you say exactly). In the longer term, I think you're likely to see this happening in the PortableApps.com Platform.
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