You are here

KeePass Professional Edition (AKA 2.x)

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
Anonymous (not verified)
KeePass Professional Edition (AKA 2.x)

I know .NET is totally impossible to portabilize, & that KPPro can malfunction using Novell's Mono, but an installer similar to the new Live ones (see Google Chrome Portable or Skype Portable) can be used so that it installs KPPro as usual AND gather the necessary libraries from the PC in which the installer is running copying them to the KeePassPortable/app/keepass/ folder. I have been recently using KPPro in W7 RC & I now find totally impossible to use again the old KeePass. Could somethting like this be done?

Chris Morgan
Chris Morgan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 9 years 3 weeks ago
Joined: 2007-04-15 21:08
No

As you say, .NET is totally impossible to make portable. Am I missing something, or is that what you're asking about?

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

EspaÑaks (not verified)
Not exactly.

I'm wondered if a portable version of KeePass 2 could be done if the installer copies the .Net libraries from a local install or download them. That shouldn't break any license, does it?

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 49 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Nope

.NET needs to be installed at the OS level which requires admin privs and a reboot.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

just
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 7 months ago
Joined: 2008-08-08 12:17
KeePass 2.09

any good soul will care to say when I am going to have
KeePass 2.09, which has been released by authers.
My Thanks to all good girls and boys at portableapps.com
they are the best. always respect.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Offline
Last seen: 21 hours 49 min ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Not Portable

As has been discussed, KeePass 2.x requires .NET and thus can't be portable.

.NET is only included on Windows Vista and later by default. On Windows XP, it requires a user with admin rights to manually add it in and reboot the machine. Windows XP machines currently make up 77% of all Windows machines in use.

So, a .NET-based application will work on some machines and not others and the user won't be able to tell whether it will or won't ahead of time. On most PCs the user encounters outside of home, it won't work as .NET won't be installed.

KeePass 1.0 is continuing development. There's currently no reason to use 2.0 over 1.0. And 2.0 uses a different database format that's not compatible with KeePass for many other systems (like KeePassDroid that I use on my Android phone).

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

just
Offline
Last seen: 14 years 7 months ago
Joined: 2008-08-08 12:17
within 10 min !!!!

Mr.Haller, thank you in making me understand in simple words.
and you answered me within 10 minuites,you are a wonderful person
in real life too. I have not seen any who donate their body parts.
You are an example for people like me and my children. always respect.

digitxp
digitxp's picture
Offline
Last seen: 12 years 10 months ago
Joined: 2007-11-03 18:33
5 words

Two-Channel Auto-Type Obfuscation Blum

Insert original signature here with Greasemonkey Script.

horusofoz
horusofoz's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 1 week ago
Joined: 2008-04-03 22:45
KeePassDroid... Sweet!

Thanks John. One more reason I'm getting the Motorola Droid as soon as it becomes available down under. I wasn't looking forward to migrating my KeePass Portable database to something that could sync with an Android password manager so that bit of info is very much appreciated Smile

PortableApps.com Advocate

Darkbee
Darkbee's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 2 months ago
Joined: 2008-04-14 09:41
v2.x vs v1.x

What are the advantages of v2.x over v1.x? It was my understanding that it was mainly a development platform change that would allow easier development of future version but it wasn't ever clear exactly how they would translate in terms of features.

I have no complaints of the 1.x series and am quite happy to run that as my portable app of choice without getting into sticky territory of .net

I would argue that .net is no different from Java so that if you can run java apps portably (by virtue of the fact that you can run Java portably) then you can run .net apps portably but the fact that .net is a Microsoft probably cuts a hole in my theory.

Still, again it really comes down to the fact that is there any reason to prefer v2.x over 1.x (at least at this early stage of development)?

Log in or register to post comments