I'm working on an indicator of live installers for those who don't like such things and was thinking of having them end in live.paf.exe instead of just paf.exe. Do people think this is sufficient to let people know? Do most people care?
Please post your thoughts on it so we can nail this down for the 1.0 release.
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
I reckon that it'd be messy to add in a .live or -live, and I don't believe most people will care. My opinion, for those that want to know, is that a new line should be added on the welcome page, e.g. 'NOTE: this is a "live" installer which will download the application from the Internet.', possibly citing licensing reasons (though that may not be every app's reason, maybe another installer.ini option?). As for where to put it, it could go before the "click next to continue", or a few lines below it so that it's near the bottom (but won't go over with large font sizes, that's the problem).
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
I'd rather not do it there. Then we have to get it translated into 55 languages. And the welcome screen is skipped if you run an installer from the PortableApps.com Platform. It's more so people can know when they look at an installer if it is live. The type of people who this will bug are generally manually downloading and running them (and won't be using the updater which also skips the welcome screen of installers).
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I thought Chris's comments where good but yours make sens too
If the welcome page is skipped and/or the work is too big to get it translated then a *.live.paf.exe maybe is the way to go. But I'm not really happy with it.
On the other hand: Is this really so important that it justifies a new extension?
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
It won't be an extension really. The name of the installer will just end in it. So, if AbiWord were live, it'd be AbiWordPortable_2.6.8_live.paf.exe
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
But file names are easy to change so it isn't an indicator I would trust if I wanted/needed to be sure.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
I'm gonna build in the ability for the installer to self-check to ensure that it ends in _live.paf.exe and show an error if renamed.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
then go with the *.live.paf.exe!
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
That would be a pretty nasty error if fatal. I mean, if you rename it to something more aesthetically pleasing, like "Firefox 3.5.1 Portable.exe", and it doesn't work, because the name was changed, that's not cool. I hope that's not what you meant. I used to rename them so they were more legible, but now I don't bother. Still, enforcing the filename to stay a certain way doesn't make sense.
I would say simplicity is the key. You've said all the installer icons are going to be the same for uniformity, so a live installer having a slightly different icon would make it stand out as different. Visual cues are the easiest; the download button on the page is a big red button. Never mind what it actually says, people know to move their mouse towards that big red button, regardless of what language they speak. Make the button blue for live installers, or green, or another color, like the color of the proposed arrow on the icon, and it'll carry a meaning that'll transcend language. And once the appropriate strings are translated into all 55 (?) languages, it's done, it wouldn't need to be done for each one. It would just be part of the format. I mean, when you build. You either go one way, everything goes into the package, default icon, old text; or it's set up to download, it gets the new icon, the new text.
We won't be doing special download buttons or anything major. As said, the indications will be consistent but simple. Most people don't care, so there's no reason to get complicated, add extra pages or extra text to the welcome (which is usually skipped going forward). Nor will we be doing a new icon or a new extension. The only thing it'll be is the installer ending in _live.paf.exe and the installer will force that (and only that part) so that someone can't pass off a live installer as a non-live one.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Except by adding not in front of it
That's just me being facetious though - I'd say adding a string is the best way to achieve it (personally I would prefer _web.paf.exe but whatever you choose is good).
Thing is though (regarding translations) surely you'll have to get whatever you want the installer to do if it's been renamed translated into all 55 languages?
strange! Why don't you add a line to the big red download button saying something like "Live-Installer"
It needs to be something standard and a part of the installer string. Any installer compiled with the live download functionality will force it to end in .live.paf.exe or it won't run, that way people can't hide it.
We'll probably mention it on here, but won't make it too prominent since 95%+ people won't care or know what it means.
Remember, lots of other sites already make PAFs available. And many more will shortly.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Yeah, many other sites make PAFs available, but most of them are crappy (leave things behind and aren't really paf-format). And if you list all "PortableApps.com approved" apps at the applications page, you could place a note saying that's a live installer.
Well, I myself never do live installations and I'm never online when installing/testing apps. I want to know whether it's a live installer or not before downloading and wasting my time/bandwith.
And some other sites use custom installers (without included source) too, but the filename ends *.paf.exe. So nobody can say what the installer is doing, even if the filename ends live.paf.exe or not. Makes no difference!
Just my two cents!
We just approved other sites to use the official PAF installer and spec in the last month, so they're starting to come out bit by bit. There are lots of old installers that end in .paf.exe that aren't real PAF installers as well as counterfeit ones by some other sites. The next platform release can watch for this partially and warn you.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I think it should be, for example, "LIVE_AbiWordPortable_2.6.8.paf.exe" or "AbiWordPortable_2.6.8_LIVE.paf.exe"
P.D.:I was reading this thinking about "automatic" installers.
Another way would be to use a slightly different icon, one with a green "down" arrow in the icon.
Maybe even make it so that icon is used when the PAF installer calls for a download.
Appending LIVE to the filename somehow wouldn't be so bad. Or you could have it lpaf.exe or lpf.exe (Live Portable[A|a]pps.com Format).
I can't speak for most people, but I personally don't care if an installer is going to download, but for apps that are free and open source, I'd prefer if a full installer were available. For example, you could offer a Firefox Live PAF that would always download and install the current version, and that would be cool, but I'd also like a version which contains the current version. Especially if you're going to install it on a computer with a proxy, e.g. work or school.
I'd say yes to putting it into the file name, as long as it's _live.paf.exe, not .live.paf.exe. Adding another extension would just be ridiculous, but if I'm reading this right, that's not what you were intending anyway. I think you would still need some way of documenting or otherwise making it widely understood just what that meant or you're still going to have people download the file, completely overlook the filename and still wonder what was going on when starts downloading. You'd need to find some way on the site or somewhere that you can publicly state "hey, if the file name says this then yes it will download additional files from the internet as part of the installation process". Maybe for it to stand out even more... _(live).paf.exe?? If you put live in parentheses or square brackets or something, it would stand out as not part of the program name and not part of the file extension.
Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.
As already stated, it will be indicated on each page consistently, but probably not too prominently. For the small percentage of people that care about live installers, they'll pick up on it pretty quickly.
We'll only be using live installers when necessary for licensing reasons, really.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Possibly for the Suite as well? Since it is such a bandwidth issue, as previously stated... perhaps installing the suite could offer a list of apps, check the ones you want, and then it downloads the latest ones. That way it would never be outdated, it would save bandwidth, and the end user would get exactly what they want.
That will be handled by the updater on first launch if you just install the platform.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
We'll only be using live installers when necessary for licensing reasons, really.
Yeah, I figured as much. I guess I missed the part about posting on the page, so you're already on that as well. I personally don't mind the live installers, since I almost always install the apps as soon as I download them, so I'm still connected to the internet. I was just adding my $0.0223484 CAD
Quamquam omniam nescio, nec nihil scio.
I don't like the term "Live". To me "live" implies self contained as in a "Live CD" of Linux or Windows. A term like "shell" or "builder" might be clearer. Or "loader". "Installer"?
I understand where you're coming from and think it's a great idea I just think the "live" word will be misleading.
How about the term "plugin"?
Ed
The problem is that none of those really work. Shell or builder mean zip to most users. As does loader. Plugin means something totally different (and is used for our plugin installers that don't download anything).
I've seen the term live used in installers that download elsewhere, so it's not entirely unique in this case.
I considered other terms like 'connected' or 'download' but those are too long. The only one that may work is 'web' since 'web installer' is used sometimes.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Shell or builder mean zip to most users. As does loader.
I'm not sure I agree with that those mean only ZIP to most users. I think the terms are more encompassing than that to most. And even ZIP implies a download whereas Live implies complete, ready to run.
Ed
i certainly wouldn't think of any of those terms to mean "this file will go out to to the web and download the files to be installed"
i also don't think of them as ZIP
i'm not a fan of _live either, but either _live or _web seem more logical than shell or builder
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
Shell brings to mind a command shell first and I've never seen it used for an installer like this. Builder brings to mind a compiler or packager as it's used in other locations. While these may make sense from a technical sense since we know what the installer is doing, they probably won't to an end user.
Remember, we're not looking to CREATE a new terminology or tag here, we're looking to piggyback on one that others are currently using and users may be familiar with. Of all the terms we've discussed, 'live' is the only one I've seen used to refer to an installer that downloads other things from online.
NSIS refers to 'web installers' which is why I suggested 'web' as a possibility. But I haven't seen any actual installers use the term.
After some more research, I have seen others refer to them as 'online' installers, so 'online' as the tag could work, too. Sun's Java installer does this, for example (online vs offline).
In the end, we need to pick one that is semi-familiar and used other places and stick to it. I don't think most users care one way or another (most 'live' installers for locally-installed Windows software are not labeled as such). The folks who do care will figure it out quickly and, since all PAF.EXE installers will be consistent, will then know how to recognize it.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
i like "web" or "online"
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
I like live or online. And I reckon it'd need to be _live.paf.exe or _online.paf.exe rather than .*.paf.exe... too many dots spoil the broth.
Also thinking more about it, we've already used "live" for the RunLocally versions of our apps. Maybe "online" should ride then even if it's not so "snappy".
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
All current PA apps are "complete", they contain the launcher and the app files. The new ones will not be complete, rather they will be a "shell" that when run will "build" the complete app on the stick. Maybe "installer" is the word to use.
Or label them as PAB.exe files for PortableAppBuilder, rather than PAF.exe. Or PAI.exe.
Ed
pab.exe
sounds good to me or alternatively
pafb.exe?
PortableApps.com Advocate
Please don't go for anything like this... PAF is the PortableApps.com Format. .paf.exe is an established extension. Anything else would cause trouble, and also it's just not as nice. An AppNamePortable_1.2.3_English_Live.paf.exe or similar is one thing, changing the extension is another, and I'm pretty sure John would agree with me that it's not the best way to go. Also it just won't mean anything to an end user.
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
I am against any new extension too and so is John so I guess its not gonna happen.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
PAF is the PortableApps.com Format. .paf.exe is an established extension. Anything else would cause trouble
No one is suggesting changing paf.exe for the existing app format. It is as you say a known standard. What we are discussing is ADDing a new standard for the NEW format that builds the portable app. PAF would still be for those apps that are self contained and PAB would be for those that build the app by pulling pieces together.
Speaking of pulling pieces together (building the portable app) there are really two sources in which to pull app files, one is to download the app from the vendor's site, the other is to pull them from the user's installed app's folders on their hard drive or from their CDs. This latter source is more common than the former one and is in fact the basis for building bootable Windows systems like BartPE, UBCD4WIN and WinBuilder and all the plugins they add. I'm surprised no one here has considered it for PA apps.
Ed
.paf.exe isn't an extension, .exe is. Windows basically reads a file's name+extension right to left. It looks at the letters after the last dot and that's the extension. EXE means it's executable code. AppNamePortable.1.2.345.paf is the filename and exe is the extension.
PAF is an established tag like Beta. Not an extension.
And it could be argued that PAF isn't really all that established. PA is at a turning point, going from open-source as a requirement to an option, adding live installers, other people are getting on board - a new tag to indicate it's live/web, whether it's live.paf.exe or lpf.exe or pab.exe, would highlight this new direction, not hide it and murk things up.
But at the end of the day, web access and broadband access are becoming more and more common every day. I live out in the middle of nowhere in rural NC and just got 3Mb DSL last year. Before that it was strictly dialup only. So the amount of people actually impacted by an app that needs to download files will be a minimum. Besides, many apps need to download files. These web installers are nothing new, nor unexpected, nor even really undesirable. 5-6 years ago, maybe, but not now.
I like "web" and "online" but figured I'd throw out a couple others to see what sticks.
.http.paf.exe
_http.paf.exe
.downloader.paf.exe
_downloader.paf.exe
.internet.paf.exe
_internet.paf.exe
Once you go portable...
FWIW, I really like "live". Nice and concise.
Maybe looking for too comercial apps, but the installers of Acrobat & M$ Wshrieckndows Live were named not much time ago (I have spent too much time not even naming theese) "adobe_reader_web_installer_win32.exe" & "Live_web_install.exe"