Is anyone working on Chrome 6 portable? The main advantage in Chrome 6 that I think would be very useful in Chrome Portable is the ability to sync everything - so the browser is exactly the same as the one on my local computer. This is particularly useful for a portable app.
Of course other features like WebM video support, autofill, streamlined interface and increased speeds help.
Robin.
More info: http://bit.ly/9VSxIT
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
Oh and it includes Google's own PDF plugin - which is wonderfully quick - to replace Adobe's browser plugin. It's not enabled by default, but you can enable it (and disable Adobe's) by visiting "chrome://plugins" in the browser.
[Link to illegal software removed by mod Chris, redistributes Chrome (app+trademark), Firefox (trademark), and more illegally]
They even get the update-procedure right...
mod Chris, that seems disappointingly anti-competitive of you. It's a rather tight view of "illegal software". And besides, for all you know they have permission from Google to redistribute their software. I can't imagine Google objecting anyway. In the same way that I don't always ask permission to copy an image from Google Images for use in academic work - technically it's illegal, but no-one actually cares.
In either case it's their lookout, not yours. There's no way you're going to be prosecuted for having a link to their website in your forum. And it's certainly informative for member of this forum to know what else is out there.
Shame.
Robin.
First, I want to say that I'm not trying to be a troll or start a flame war here, but I'm going to call it like I see it.
I didn't get to see the link Chris removed, but I can probably guess which website it was. That website owner deliberately goes out of his way to antagonize PortableApps and make us look bad; he takes our work, rebrands it (with a logo obvious ripped from the PortableApps logo) and redistributes it without any kind of permission at all.
Regardless of whether I'm right about which website was posted or not, we don't support illegal software here. PortableApps is well-known for taking the high road when it comes to ethics, and that includes keeping pirated apps off the forums. It's not a matter of being prosecuted or "stifling competition"; it's a matter of having a stellar reputation, by far the best of any portable-app maker, and wanting to keep that reputation.
It's also reasonably certain that app didn't get permission from Google; heck, even we didn't get full packaging permission, which is why our Chrome Portable releases are all online installers. If PortableApps, the #1 portable-app maker, can't get permission, there's no way some random guy can.
Shame on you for supporting illegal apps.
"The question I would like to know, is the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything. All we know about it is that the Answer is Forty-two, which is a little aggravating."
I fear I may be starting to join you in a flame war here...
If someone likes to just rebrand your apps without permission, penilise them all you like. But I doubt it was the site you're talking about - it's German for a start, and called [reference to illegal software site removed by mod JTH] (mod can remove that if they want I suppose). And their portable app looks nothing like yours (in file structure).
And I'm not "supporting" them. I didn't post the original link, I just have it because I was sent the original post in an email notification.
They're very interesting, because they have a method of updating Google Chrome directly. This might be "illegal", I don't know. But it's worth looking into.
And therein lies the most important point - you don't gain anything by removing information from this forum. If it's 'illegal', sure say so next to the link. But more information is *always* better, which is a principle that the whole internet is based on. We don't simply censor stuff because we don't think it's right (well, China do...).
Anyway, I don't have the power here, it's not my site. I don't think this link should have been removed, but it doesn't change my respect for PortableApps as a great organisation.
So this is all I'm going to say on the topic. So this doesn't escalate.
Peace,
Robin.
First of all, in the eyes of the law, illegal is illegal, regardless of whether you kill 10,000 people, or copy an image or a logo without permission. They may carry different sentences, but they are both illegal.
Secondly, John is actively in negotiations with hardware and software vendors to try to get come collaborative deals, and suchlike in place for them to bundle PortableApps.com software with their devices, which he hopes will eventually actually pay for the running of the site, which currently comes out of his own pocket. As I'm sure sure understand if the vendors get the idea that we happily discuss illegal software here, then they will pull out faster that you could believe a man in a suit could move!
As a perfect example, John is currently working with Oracle to get permission to legally repackage OpenOffice.org. If Oracle thought we dealt with, recommended, discussed or in any way condoned, illegal software practices, then we could kiss that permission every landing goodbye.
So, in summary, the site has a zero tolerance for illegal software distribution, even when that's just an un-attributed logo. I hope this note has helped explain why.
What would be especially helpful, if Google were on board, is that they could potentially design the portable version of their browser a little differently, so that it doesn't slow down when running off a slow USB stick - which it currently does, in my experience - although early versions of Chrome portable didn't slow down at all, so something's changed. Maybe the portable version should load more into virtual memory.
Very informative, thanks. I hope those deals come to something, it would be very useful if PortableApps could enlist the cooperation of Google and the like.
That site illegally packages Google Chrome, Firefox and others without permission. Copyright infringement, trademark violation, etc. Nothing too new there. Unlike other portable sites, we only deal with fully legal software here and routinely remove links and references to illegal software.
Their updater isn't a way of getting Google's updater to work. It's just one of their own design that's like a stripped down version of the PA.c Updater but designed to only work with a single app. Nothing too complex about it. We're just doing updaters PA.c universe-wide rather than creating individual custom updaters for each app (which is inefficient in terms of development time and inefficient in terms of end-user time to make all the different updates).
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Well the main difference, and right now it seems like a pretty useful one, is that their updater downloads the latest version directly from Google, meaning that with their solution I can enjoy portable Google Chrome 6 right now, whereas there is currently no PortableApps.com version of Google Chrome 6.
How do they account for changes in the base app? If the base application suddenly changes the way it stores things (or the location) then surely that will break portability? I can't believe they've employed some kind of AI in their code to detect and modify itself accordingly. (maybe they have, which would then indeed be very impressive). So perhaps their solution is to just hope for the best, which will probably be okay most of the time but you can bet it will break eventually.
Yes I can see that's a problem. I'm only commenting on the fact that right now it works. Which is pretty useful. Right now it's the only way I can get Google Chrome 6 portably.