InfraRecorder is an open source CD/DVD burning solution for Microsoft Windows. It offers a wide range of powerful features, all through an easy to use application interface and Windows Explorer integration.
http://infrarecorder.sourceforge.net
I see that John did work on an older version of this. Perhaps the bug that caused him to stop it was fixed in the 0.44.1 release. Version 0.45 should be coming out later this month which will be "adding proper UDF support" but i went ahead and released this version now. I took their "portable" version and kept it from keeping a log file on the hdd, i upx'd all exe, dll, and irc files, and i put it in the proper portableapps format.
BTW, on this site i only see that exe and dll files are instructed to be upx'd so i was wondering if there were any problems created by upxing others like .irc and .pyd files.
*Edit
The only things changed in the Dev 2 Release are paf compliance things and one little code change. No need to re-download...
InfraRecorder Portable 0.44.1 Dev Test 2 2.70MB
To burn video DVDs, you'll also need the MP3 codec (you don't need it for audio CDs, data CDs or data DVDs). This is not packaged with the main download as it is not legal in all countries due to patent issues. Do not download it if the MP3 patent applies in your country. -John
Here is the plugin that John made InfraRecorder Portable MP3 Plugin 0.42 Pre-Release 3 264 KB
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
we should let John handle this one with updates. It's great that you're trying to help out, but as you said, he already started a version. Sure it hasn't been updated yet, but I know it will be coming.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
Maybe it'll help John realize people want more official apps than they want updated apps...
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
I just want to give a friendly reminder that all of the great programs on this site, beta tested or officially released, are free and take a lot of effort on the part of those who develop them. Constructive criticism is always appreciated but grumbling is not. John has other projects and concerns besides this website and has been doing a really great job of getting apps out there lately.
Additionally, I'm glad he's updating programs. The GIMP's version was pretty old for a while, and the latest version of Notepad++ is nice as well. Both of these are programs I use in my profession, and its always nice to be on the cutting edge portably. There's a lot of great stuff here including some of the programs you have posted, so cut John some slack.
it doesn't really matter to me who releases it. John's version is from over 7 months ago so i am providing new versions. John can take mine and slap his name on it for all i care.
Wow, this seems like a really stuck-up crowd. Why not get work one and stop with the whining. I don't see anyone bashing John, its just someone doing everyone a faor and releasing and updated portabled app.
I can see there is a clique going on here, some attitudes, in my opinion.
How does it help this project grow in capability and popularity to be such people who deter progress?
I say "good job T", but who am I? Just a newbie here and not in the in-crowd clique...and so far have done nothing right, apparently.
I wasn't trying to criticize T, just stating that John has a package coming already, in this case it seems kind of like reinventing the wheel.
You are right that some of the ppl here get an attitude, I admit I have on occasion. In your ImgBurn post, I'm trying to take a negative tone, just to explain the legal issues. As for cliques, I don't really see that, everything USUALLY (see: not always) just kind of flows nicely around here.
Progress is being made though, there are plenty of new applications in the Beta Testing forums, most of them are going thru a peer review process by the forum moderators and by John T. Haller, then John will create a splash screen for them, apply the PortableApps.com digital signature, and release them as official apps.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
Well, that's a broken procedure. to be sure. I see many sites talking about "portable apps"...such as this site. It is all about the U3 project and others trying to make money doing the same thing while many others are trying to do it for free. PAM has the ability to really take off if it wasn't so (apparently) locked down. I mean, I see many peoples' list of portable apps on their USB flash drives and half of the apps are not on this site but these people are using PAM. So, you have many people out there making their own portable apps and nobody else gets to use them because these people are not fully enabled and encouraged to share their labors and innovations (it seems).
They can share any Open Source (freeware is coming soon, currently posting a launcher only for a freeware app is allowed) project they wish. They need John's digital signature to become an official PortableApps.com application (it's to verify quality and integrity of the apps), but users can continute to create, test, and use the apps even if they aren't official. The beta testing thread is really quite active, and John is opening things up, he now has a team of developers working on the menu, instead of trying to do it all himself, and is allowing user created apps to become official, they just need to be tested first, and should conform to the latest PAF specs (which are "coming later this week" for a few weeks now, but just looking at the SumatraPDF or 7-zip launchers will give a good idea).
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
My earlier comments were directed at digitxp only. As for T, it's good to put things like this out there. But your attitude of "John can take mine and slap his name on it for all i care." is not helpful. The PAF format is a way of ensuring quality apps and that process takes time. John is doing more that slapping his name on the program, he is making sure that is something that all can use without problems.
This is an idiotic bottleneck way to kill the acceptance and popularity of such a project, I used the *.paf.exe on my dreaded package, I suppose I broke a Law of John now?
Hey, I think mighty John needs a page or section clearly linked to on the main top menu here proclaiming the major LAWS and what us children are not allowed to do. If this already exists, I have yet to find it. I can say if the idea is that everything for PAM must go through and be approved by one person, that alone is a ridiculous notion. I know you'll say it is for quality, but that assumes nobody can possibly know how to do this correctly other than THE ONE. This is why I will never own a Mac again, it is also why I will either not use PAM any more or I will do what I need and want to do with freeware included, as MANY people are doing, and get nothing but abrasive paranoia from this site's inhabitants and host.
This is like a team of possibly thousands of devs that are all required to get code review from one special god-dev before checking in code. Retarded.
Now, go delete or edit this reply and ban me for daring to ask for an independent test of my way of making a portable app package for PAM using FREEWARE. I know you see me as a troll, but I am actually just a new user/fan of PAM and needed to have one of my favorite freeware tools on my PAM USB drive and asked for someone to look at what I did. John, THE ONE, should not be slapping his name on each and everything released as a portable app for PAM. Make the platform, lay out the standards for PAF packs and let people make them. This is just totally frustrating to me to see the response both I got and T got and to see some of the procedural info revealed in this thread.
Hate me, delete me, ban me. I am one of your [new] users and planned to be a new contributor of portable app packages, Now I either won't be or I'll just do it independently and not include you folks.
This is John's site. John's rules.
Many people have made open source wrappers for closed source products and distributed them here. John has no problem with this.
As for the closed-ness of the site, John has apologized for that. It has to do with legal issues of distributing this stuff.
He doesn't slap his name on everything. WinMerge is an example. That's Ryan Mccue's app. Always was, Always will be.
We help, we share. We don't tear people down unless they really deserve it.
k3nd00dyahoo.com, we don't hate you. But you must obey the rules of this site. Since you will not on your own, we are willing to help you. Try just posting the wrapper for the package.
I shall now stop feeding the troll.
(BTW, I won't return until Monday, load me up Sunday night, you guys.)
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
See, I am now called a troll.
Can you point me to these supposed rules? Please? If this is really about there being a preferred and accepted way to make a package to be used with freeware but not all wrapped together, where are these rules or where is the simple reply telling me this and what is preferred? I keep mentioning I don't find them. And if the way things are here is there is a ONE GOD PERSON who's word is all, then don't worry...I am out of here. Way to welcome a new user/contributor. Pat yourselves on your backs and hail your leader.
John is not the "ONE GOD PERSON", he's simply the site owner, the original creator of PortableApps and the PortableApps format and menu, and he handles the legal issues for the site. As we've told you numerous times, it is perfectly fine for you to post just your launcher for the app (it's in the forum guidelines, just not very well-stated, I plan on writing a new set that says the same stuff, only in a way that can be understood, and offering them up as a replacement).
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
I can't even be sure what you are telling me to post or how it would be useful without including the application itself. As noted in my *original* post, I am using a non-standard way to do this (no NSIS or any other formal installer for that matter). For that alone I now suspect I'd be chastised.
Not at all, use whatever method u wish. If u used a batch file to launch the app, post the batch file. there's nothing at all wrong with that.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
The problem with freeware is not what we want, nor what John wants. It's the restrictions of the freeware app itself that prohibit us from releasing freeware apps wrapped into an PAF installer. I hope you understand that, it's not our fault that the developers of non-open source software not allow us to make a portble version.
I understand why John doesn't like us to wrap a non open source application and publish it on his site. It's against the rules. Again not against our rules but against the software license.
Let's just hope that more developers of closed software will decide to make a paf.exe themselves for their app.
I have made some launchers for some games myself. Maybe these launchers would make a real PAF.EXE developer hurl because they are non-standard script. I try to keep a close match to the PAF format so I don't think theres a real problem.
Cheers.
so i think this app is ready for official release but before i posted it the official release thread, i wanted to know if john wanted to do this app still or not. i assumed he wasn't going to since he never did an official release of the one he did. anyways, i tried to email him but got no response so mby he will reply to this post.
Does the original InfraRecorder include the MP3 codec? (Or what about Lame, would that work??)
the MP3 codec cannot be included in the download for legal reasons. If it's in this package, it needs to be removed. (adding info about it in a readme.txt should be ok tho)
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
LAME can.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
I don't think it can...LAME isn't legal in all countries either...that's why Audacity doesn't contain it by default.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
yeah, the codec is LAME. i don't really know what countries have problems with it but on the original infrarecorder app it's a separate package like this
Ah ok.
Hmm LAME isn't using the MP3's 'patented' way of creating an MP3 file and therefore it should not be a problem. (I myself have a (licensed) version of the official MP3 codec which came with some creative software)
If an application breaches a software patent, they could code around that. That's what LAME did.
I remember long ago software was shipped without GIF support and you had to download a patch for it seperate. GIF image format is/was patented too.
Linux, according to Microsoft was breaching 250+ patents, Open Office a bunch too. But with GPL3 Microsoft became a publisher of Open Source software (I think through a deal with Novell) and therefore should allow anyone free and royalty free usage of the patents. They essentially made a deal with Novell (I think) that ment Microsoft could not sue Novell's USERS.
A short while ago Microsoft agreed to release parts of their sourcecode for Windows and Office (again) and allow anyone to make use of it royalty free. In the same article they agreed not to sue open source projects anymore. (They never did specify what patents were breached, but if they did, the coders could work around those patents or challenge the patent).
Developers never look at patents anyway. Why? Because if you breach a patent willingly and knowingly the fine is tripled
Weirdest thing about patents though: If someone would make an application that breaches a patent, even the users of the application could be helt liable for it. (I'm sure none of use even know if we would
Most software patents are bad. BAAAAD
here's a legality question. the lame plugin is distributed separately on the infrarecorder site. would it be legal for me to just have the pa installer ask if you live in one of the countries that has a problem with lame and if the user does then it deletes the lame plugin?
Cause the fact of just downloading it would be illegal, as it's in the archive.
Interesting. LAME is licensed LGPL, but -
http://lame.sourceforge.net/rationale.php