I assume that all the various packages available in portable format are packaged at least with the authors' permission, and probably cooperation. Yet when one goes to the home site for most applications there is no reference to PortableApps anywhere to be seen.
Why do so few authors acknowledge the existence of PortableApps, have links to the PortableApps site, or offer any visible way of downloading the portable rather than installable versions of their products?
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
Almost all of our apps are open source, and we don't need to ask or wait for permission from the publishers. That means that often the publishers may not know anything about it. Often with open source software we do it ourselves with no co-operation. When making portable applications which could be made portable in a nicer way I like to contact the authors, but if they're already easy to make portable in an efficient way I often don't bother.
With our freeware apps that we bundle, we do have direct permission from the publishers as that's necessary for legality. However, they still may not feel like promoting the portable version. That's entirely up to them. Some of the publishers of our portable open source apps, like BPBible, Task Coach and Inkscape, do actively promote our portable version on their download pages.
It ends up being entirely the decision of the software teams that make the base applications (if they hear of it). To me it would seem to make sense to promote a portable version of one's application (incidentally PortableApps.com certified as a sort of certificate of portability), but not all developers think that. Sometimes they like to keep control of all official builds, a thing for builds which we've only fairly recently "allowed for" properly, making it so that they can release and host the file (rather than having it in our project as well as any location they may put it).
Feel free to suggest to the various authors that they should link to our build - maybe that's something we should do to try and increase general awareness and acceptance of portable builds.
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
Many thanks for a full and helpful response. Yes, I know that many portable apps are open source, but there seem to be quite a few that are not - and very few of either that publicise portability. These days if I am recommended to any open source or freeware program, the first thing I will do is check on the PortableApps site whether there is a portable version. I am much more likely to download and use a portable version than one that needs to be installed, and I do not believe I am alone in this.
So perhaps there would be some mileage in promoting the links, perhaps in the form of a "certified PortableApp" logo or some such. The software authors can gain from a visible relationship with PortableApps, and vice versa. I think they call it it "symbiosis"!
Colin
You are not alone... I also check a portable version first...
If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port,
and the bus is interrupted as a very last resort,
and the address of the memory makes your floppy disk abort,
then the socket packet pocket has an error to report