New: Draw.io (Jun 2, 2022), Platform 22.0b1 (Jun 10, 2022)
400+ real apps (47GB), 1.04 billion downloads, Please donate.
Please next time describe the program and give the license as obvious as the was from the link and software name.
Looks nice, if it's already portable, I'll try to package it up (Haha, Simeon) if not I'll get to it later.
Alright, looks neat, still needs a bit of work to fix some minor annoyances.. I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be portable. I'll try to package it up tonight with some others.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
Isn't it dotNet?
Weird. Kinda pointless to need .NET to lock at image. What an outrage.
Thank you for your comments. Please let me know your suggestions to make lockimage better using email, google project group, or entering issues in the project site.
i havent checked myself... .net??? nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
kills portability every time
I protest by removing my .net installation from my PC!
If there is any way to implement this functionality in C++ or some other language that does not have framework dependencies (.Net is the biggest issue), that would be great. .NET is not installed on many computers, so that kind of kills portability. Look at the source for LockNote and try to implement your image locking code in C++.
Thanks, this does look like it could be a useful app.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
I heard somewhere the framework is used so that programs can use multiple languages. Mayble DLL's will work.
Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.
The Microsoft .NET framework has a lot of things about it that are good. It is managed code, it supports Rapid Development techniques, has things like internationalization built in, and so forth.
There are some aspects of the drug pusher to it, as in getting the Express version for free, learning to use it, then finding that you are committed to it and cannot switch to something else without a large effort.
It is also large, bulky, almost impossible for one person to master in a short time, and not installed by default on many machines.
The question here is not the good it can do, but the last issue: not all versions of .NET are installed on all computers. If it is installed, fine, a fairly small program can run. But if it is not installed, it takes an admin and a long download to get it installed.
That's the main issue here. There are certain religious zealots who dislike it because it is Microsoft; the consideration is more practical here, though the religious zealots frequently pile on too.
Is the .net dependency really a reason to ban applications from being added to this project? What about all the great portable programs written in java? Those two technology for instance are now standards in the software industry.(by the way open office needs java/python for some funcionality). We can not stop development. I think that installing .net is a must nowadays. If it were Gtk or Qt for example, I would understand.
Perhaps it is the time to create several distributions of "portableapplications":
* With absolutely no dependencies
* With .net/java dependencies
If someone is interested to re-implement LockImage in C++, I will provide design documents for the C# version, if this is of any help. We still have the same aim: useful, portable open source software, what ever the programming language is
.NET has been discussed many times before. (find a link to the .NET page by John.)
Hmm I have windows2000 and the latest .NET is not even available for me. (As the latest Quicktime is not available, and IE7 also not available)
And several versions of .NET are incompatible with each other as well. If only it was like each app would have all dependencies distributed with the app itself, then it would be different.
I installed .NET for one application, and I cannot see from a user's point why I would need the huge installation. To me it seemed another way of MS-lock-in technology. Now KeePass 2 also uses .NET and they claim it's the wai of the future anyway. Hmm, but I guess you know why you used .NET... I just cannot see it, again from a user point of view.
It's great having extra routines available with great security stuff and all, but is there no alternative?
Portable Apps is back to the roots of computing, start an exe and it works. All that the app needs is included. Like in the old days. And while I wish more developers made their apps 'standalone' every time they write in registry, use some data folder, rely of external installed applications and make the apps more tied to the particular PC or external installed components.
It's like making a browser that relies on Internet Explorer to be installed.
I hope more developers will embrace the future and make applications that run on virtually any PC with the vanilla OS installed. So you could go to any other PC with the same OS and use the application without having that PC's owner to install anything else.
I seen in the past developers use registry and data / user folders just because it's the formal way to do it, forfeiting the use of an ini file that would make their whole application portable in a snap.
Nowadays I even see developers offering a portable version and I begin to wonder, if they want to make a portable version, why do they even have a non-portable version. Ok , I know using the registry can make apps start by file associations but thats something extra. If only they would use the registry for those things and keep their private settings... well, private. There are already so many registry entries (often not even removed so the app knows it has been installed in the past
To make a short story long, I love to see app becoming stand allone again. No shared DLL's (one app needs this version, another that version...)
I hope you understand.
And John has made a page with the technical reasoning why .NET is considered not portable. I'm sure soon we get apps that only run on the latest Windows because they use or need one single function unavailable on the depreciated versions of the OS.
A project with .NET dependency wouldn't be banned, its just not FULLY PortableApps.com Format compliant. Part of the reason that .NET apps arent used much in the portable community is because of their dependency on the framework, it really isn't as widely used or installed as one may expect. As for JAVA, that also is not guaranteed to be on all PCs that a user may visit, but since JAVA is making their JRE and JDK and everything else open source, we can create a portable JAVA runtime environment. This cannot legally be done with .NET, and using MONO as a replacement doesn't always work.
Sure .NET and JAVA would most likely be installed in a business environment or on users' home PCs, but for those that use internet Cafes and similar places, these frameworks are probably not available.
Another downside to .NET is the lack of compatibility between versions of the framework. 3.0 was the only version to date that had backwards compatibility, but that was broken in the 3.5 release.
This discussion about .NET and portability triggered me to reconsider the development of LockImage. I even started to read the C++ code of KeePass which looks very professional to me, when I found this: http://keepass.info/devstatus.html#whynet
KeePass 2 is now under development using c#. KeePass 1 will continue to exist but for me, this is a reason enough to continue developing ImageLock on dotnet. I hope that one day some acceptable solution would be found to make .NET application portable.
If you want a virus on your drive.
There is a portable .NET and it's 'only' 130 MB
Besides .NET features papented stuff by MicroSoft...