Hi everyone,
I'm not sure if it's the right place to post but as it's a general question, I tried "General Discussion" 
Please move this post if I'm wrong.
Many people in the past asked to make portable some applications portable but get a not possible answer because of requirements.
- Admin privileges to install driver (thinking of VirtualBox and TrueCrypt)
- .Net installed (thinking of Paint.Net which I don't use anyway ...)
I understand these applications are not elligeable for full portability but some people (like me) do not ask for full compatibility. For instance, I have admin access rights on all machines I log to...
So, I've seen today (https://portableapps.com/node/21572) that the discussion is open to create a specific category for .Net requirements (it has even been integratd in P.A. Format ?).
Maybe the same kind of "enlargments" for application which required admin rights ?
Thank you for reading this and for all your efforts.
Regards,
Guillaume
Edit: Edit to make link work...
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on BlueSky
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on Twitter
I think it might be that people don't want to mess with them knowing that they wont be added to the list and nobody will download them? I don't know why VirtualBox has not been packaged in paf format it has been mentioned many times. I think it was created once but died.
I don't think that they should be excluded from the list just because they are not fully portable. I do think that they should have there own category in the list or have a marking on them that shows that they need admin privileges or .net to run.
"It's just an online installer. It's not going to mug you.", JTH
"The shell is the key to unlock Linux's greatest advantages."
You can actually make Virtual Box contain its settings fairly easily. But for Full PAF'ness, it should be able to install the drivers and then uninstall them after you're done.
Not also that last time I tried, the every time you upgrade Virtual Box, you upgrade the drivers. If you go to version, say 3.4.1, drivers from 3.4.0 will not work. SO that's a issue.
Its not easy for something complicated like VirtualBox to be made fully portable.
As for .net, I'm not opposed to them. I probably won't use them, unless something *really* special shows up, not because I really care if its .net or not, I just have everything I need currently.
Anyone that would like to can have a go, CamStudio is my next project and I think I've got everything figured out
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world
What drivers does Virtual Box install? and does it need them to run?
"It's just an online installer. It's not going to mug you.", JTH
"The shell is the key to unlock Linux's greatest advantages."
The drivers it needs to install are network drivers. No you don't need them if you don't need internet in your virtual machine.
S.O.G.
there's three or four of them. One is for virtulization to even take place.
Too many lonely hearts in the real world
Too many bridges you can burn
Too many tables you can't turn
Don't wanna live my life in the real world
When we get a filterable directory, we'll probably allow people the option of showing or hiding .NET-based apps with them hidden by default.
There is no requirement against admin apps, just that they need to require them for a reason (like jkdefrag or ccleaner for instance) and perform as a PA.c Format app. VirtualBox is a candidate with that caveat. TrueCrypt is, too, though it's honestly made to be installed outside the PA.c Platform and then all your files installed inside it.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Thanks John,
I completely forgot JkDefrag and did not known ccleaner required admin rights (but now that you said it, it seems obvious :))
As far as I known (I use it every day with admin account), Virtual Box has been made portable on vbox.me. And they recently changed the installer for licensing reasons to download virtual box instead of packaging them. So, maybe they could package it as paf installer...
You're completelly right about TrueCrypt, I use it as a container too. It was just an example. Anyway, thank you (and other people who answered) for your answer.