I just saw the new 2.0 alpha of KeePass will require Microsoft .NET framework and therefore will only work with Win2K and beyond.
Has anyone else seen this? They are still calling it portable, but it seems like such a huge dependency is not really portable anymore.
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
just about to make a post like this! Not really a problem for me as all the PC's I use have .NET installed, put I agree, hardly portable any more.
Yours
Steve Lamerton
My Blog
1.0 will still be maintained after the 2.0 release. A number of people are disappointed at the .NET thing since, speaking from a desktop install perspective, it not only requires you to install .NET 2.0 (which is huge and has security issues) on your local PC but it also kills off support for Windows 95/98/Me and Wine under Linux. But, it seems that they are going to maintaining both as separate code bases (2.0 is a complete rewrite).
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
This is a lame ( lazy ?) decision IMO .
Not only does it disqualify keepass as a "true" portable app,
it makes an open-source app dependent of a closed-sourced
M$-framework .. WHY ?
Hi RMB Fixed,
as a long time user (and donator) of KeePass Password Safe I am disappointed, too - as are many other user - of the very restricted portability of KeePass2 and hope that there will be further development and improvement for KeePass1.
BUT we absolutely don't have the right to condemn Dominik or even call him lame or lazy, as he and others develop, improve and port KeePass in their spare time and provide it to the community for free. There are many commercial password applications with only a fraction of KeePass' functionality which aren't even semi portable.
Cya Ryushi
P.S. If you look around you will find many freeware or open source applications developed with a .NET-dialect and therefore being .NET-framework dependent.
OK, none of them is as vital to me as KeePass - but for my thumb stick I still can use KeePass1.
There is now a site where the main developer of KeePass explain why he decided to use .NET for KeePass 2.x:
http://keepass.info/devstatus.html
Cya Ryushi
Ok, call me crazy, but I agree with their choice. Though I am sad to see 98 support go away, and .NET required, I must admit that when doing a large project like this, .NET really cuts down on development time. This means we the community get more features faster. And let's be honest, in 5 years .NET is going to be on at LEAST > 70% of the computers out there. I mean every new computer comes with Vista, and the number of computers that get .NET through windows update is only going to increase.
So yeah, it's a bummer because I'd love to see them rewrite the whole thing in C++, but I know they probably don't have the time
hehe.