As most folks know, we package KeePass Portable for portable use. We use the 1.0 (aka Classic) branch as it works on nearly all PCs. KeePass also has the "Professional Edition" (aka 2.0) branch which is .NET-based and, thus, won't work on most PCs you encounter in the wild.
A few people have asked about the 2.0 branch as it does have a few additional features while sacrificing compatibility with 3rd party builds like KeePass on Android phones, for example. I was thinking we could offer it as an option lower down on the KeePass page and identify it as KeePassProPortable AppID-wise to keep things straight, with the appropriate caveat that it won't work on most PCs out in the wild. In the same way we offer the Chrome beta builds now and will soon offer the Audacity Beta builds.
As we offer it to folks within the PortableApps.com Updater (when we enable adds with it), we can hide the Pro version and only offer the standard one, since it is fully portable while the Pro version is not. We'll be doing the same with the "Test" editions of Firefox and Thunderbird as well (the updater will show them when you are doing an app update if you have them installed, but not offer them if you're doing an app add).
Thoughts?
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 this is a good idea.
Its good for the people who know about the pros/cons of Keepass 2.x to be able to choose.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
I think you have a good way of handling KeePass 2.0 . Since 2.0 will not work on most PCs "in the wild", 1.0, IMO should be the current standard.
I have a Motorola Droid (cell phone) on which I use KeePassDroid. I use a product called dropbox for 'sync' data among device; it does not yet sync to the Andoid OS yet. However, with the product is 2GB of 'cloud' storage. Whenever I update the KeePass, on one of my PC devices, I just drop it into 'dropbox' and it is copied to the 'cloud'. If I update it on my cell phone or a PC that I is not registered for my dropbox account, I just upload it to dropbox via a web portal. I also download it to my cell phone and my password file is current.
Very easy to do.
Now for the disclaimer. I have no vested interest in dropbox. Dropbox is not open source.
Thank you for all you do to maintain the aps and this site.
Bob
I don't think people are going to say no to more options. As long as users clearly understand which application they are downloading I don't see the problem. It's really a case of is the PA.c development team willing to pick up yet another app they have to manage (technically a duplicate app for all intents and purposes)?
I personally have no plans to migrate from v1.x to v2.x. I'm perfectly happy with the functionality offered in version 1.
The list could already use a major reorganization. Maybe in 2010 there can be a category for apps requiring .NET. Alternatively, appending the app name with "(requires the Microsoft .NET Framework)" could work.
We're going to add filtering to the list shortly with a major overhaul in the near future. You'll be able to decide whether you want .NET apps to be shown. They'll be hidden by default since they're not fully portable.
[off-topic reply by digitxp removed]
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I've been using KeePass 2.x for quite a while now from my thumb drive and think it works great. And as was mentions more options is much better than fewer...
"If knowledge can create problems, is it not through ignorance that we can solve them." -Isaac Asimov
Having options is always good - isn't that why most of us are here!
While I will probably not use apps requiring .NET for the time being, I don't think having two builds of an app that has changed so much is a bad idea.
Just my 5¢ (inflation!)
I used to sign here, but the ink keeps smudging on my screen.
... in my mind.
THX John
Paid for Software more or less?
What You need is OSS!
I use version 1.16 on my pc and on my WinMobile phone use 0.5.0. Works great with no problems. Do not plan to change.
Thanks
I don't use either, but I say go for it. It'll help clear up my thread!
If the offer of having both version goes forward, please specify on the usage/download page(s) if the password database can be used by both versions. If you're on a machine with .net, you can use the new version, if not, you use the old version.
I really don't know if the same database can be used by both versions. If so, that would be the best of both worlds.
Cancer Survivors -- Remember the fight, celebrate the victory!
Help control the rugrat population -- have yourself spayed or neutered!
2.0 is using kdbx which is not backwards compatible to 1.0. 2.0 can import and export kdb, but not use it natively. kdbx doesn't work with ports to devices such as the KeePass ports to Android, Windows Mobile, iPhone and J2ME phones. Only the Blackberry port has a version that supports kdbx.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I thought there could be a compromise so all platforms can share. Guess not.
Thanx for the clarification/explanation.
Cancer Survivors -- Remember the fight, celebrate the victory!
Help control the rugrat population -- have yourself spayed or neutered!
If someone were to somehow port mono for Windows, could mono possinly be used portable?
No, I have not done research on mono and how it works, this is why I am asking the question, please don't kill me
"Video games are bad for you? That's what they said about Rock'n'Roll." -Shigeru Miyamoto
I'd hope, because it's open source, it doesn't get too close to the system (like adware and the like do).
But on the other hand it'd be pretty hard to move all of those Mono commands to the program.
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
Good idea. I always like the idea of more choices.
I have no plans to move to the 2.0 branch either, since I do not want to depend on .NET being installed, but it is a commonly requested feature.
You know... every now and then people ask about that empty section of the menu in the lower-right corner, and there are some good ideas. Here's another good idea that is relevant to this. Host-machine status. Pull the same CPU/RAM info System Properties pulls, and also poll the system for its .NET, Java, and Admin status so users can see at-a-glance what will work and what won't.
Then add something to appinfo.ini (I think that's the one) that says something like DotNet=True and give the menu an option (toggle on/off) to hide .NET apps when .NET is not detected on the host system. A similar feature could be added to allow apps which require admin access to be hidden if the account is a limited one.
Sounds like an awesome idea to me. I didn't like the idea of having an app that may or may not run on a machine (which is one of the main ideas of portableapps-consistency). This would be a nice way of making sure I didn't try to run one that wouldn't go.
Sounds good to me. To build on that have another separator under search then have a few built in options for info that can be displayed there such as CPU/RAM uasge, .Net version, etc and give the option to add custom folder buttons to the top folder section. Then some little plugin framework for people to develop there own displays for the section.
However this would probably need to wait until the menu is ported away from Delphi.
PortableApps.com Advocate
Yes, great idea.
Adding CPU, RAM and other info to the menu as a default is a bad idea. Most users don't know what it is or care. I know what it is... and I don't care to see it really ever unless I have a runaway process to troubleshoot. And using up space just because it's there isn't the best thing to do design or usability-wise. Things like that are a later thing as an optional add-on. That space is being used for some other stuff in upcoming releases. Stuff like CPU and RAM is best reserved for desktop widgets for the people that are interested in things like that. It doesn't need to be in a start menu.
As for .NET, check out the current PA.c Format Spec. It already has an entry for .NET (including the .NET version). The Platform will eventually poll the local host and gray out a .NET based app that doesn't have the appropriate .NET framework available to it on the current PC.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
That last feature sounds sweet!
Cancer Survivors -- Remember the fight, celebrate the victory!
Help control the rugrat population -- have yourself spayed or neutered!
I would say that anybody who went to PortableApps.com to get their menu and software knows plenty about it, has an opinion on favorite brand, and can tell you something about different kinds of each. Now, maybe when PortableApps.com flash drives are sold in stores, that statement would be true. But right now, anybody using PortableApps.com software on their flash drive is a geek, unless they got the flash drive as a gift. I've given away two, so there are two PortableApps.com software users who don't know and don't care. When I get that Santa one, it's going to a non-geek as well.
Also, I didn't mean a monitor, just a statement, e.g. on this computer it'd say "Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 3.00GHz 2.99 GHz, 0.99 GB of RAM". And ".NET Framework 3.5 ready" (or not ready... I don't know the status of this machine in that regard). And "Admin" in red letters (or "Limited" in blue if it weren't the case). The power would tell me that certain portable games would probably run OK (whereas if it reported a 1.2GHz proc with 512MB of RAM, maybe not so good) and like I said, the others could hide apps with those limitations.
Yeah, I guess you don't want to paint yourself in a corner design-wise, put something there and end up needing the space. Still, when PortableApps.com flash drives hit retail and get big, you'll have a real demand to keep things simple, and I understand that -- but the demand is already there for more features. See geek.menu, R34. People who can fork/mod the menu to add more advanced features are doing so, or have done so. That'll increase as the number of users do... not to mention if the code goes to C++ or something that can be compiled with free software.
Enjoy answering posts like this :
Yeah, I'm no fan of .NET at all, IMO it's a waste of time for portable use
and offering .NET apps only leads to confusion of the non-technical users
(the majority)
[hypothetical quotation put in blockquote for ease of reading, spelling and grammar not fixed as presumed intentional
- mod Chris]
I think its a great idea.
Also: Do you want me it to the Unofficial .NET List.
"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."