Hey All!
I got a question here about VMWare ThinApp 4.0.
There are alot of apps that are made with ThinApp and they are really working on each computer i visit.
But if i'm creating my own Portable App, then it won't open on other computers or directory.
It gives this error: http://aspic.tk/api/images/451462Screen0005.PNG
So,
Does somebody know how to open it on each computer?
All the files in one EXE file, that u can open on all the computers.
I hope that somebody will help me.
Thanks!
Regards,
Porta-B
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
As this site does not use or support ThinApps you are unlikely to get much help here.
In fact many members are very opposed to ThinApps as very few folks who ask about it here actually have legal/licensed copies of the program.
Sorry,
Tim
Things have got to get better, they can't get worse, or can they?
would it be wrong for me to say there's a free solution for portablizing?: cameyo
I've used it since the end of last year or so, but I haven't said anything because...well PortableApps generally has its apps made into a PA installer/extractor, so I didn't know if it'd be considered supporting the competition...but I'll try suggesting this here I suppose.
Aside from occasional errors when running, which might fare better, running as admin if possible, it's useful over that of thinapps from the ones I've used (though I don't have the software myself, but I have looked for it and can't find one), because, as PortableApps does, though it's to the %appdata%/VOS folder instead, it saves the program's files and thus can be editable/modded/etc. ThinApp while neat from what I've seen, sadly seems to produce just a unbeknownst couple files which must have all the data stored therein.
Online packager also exists.
The local packager though often will take FOREVER to snapshot the system and then build the package thereafter...faster on computers with less data and less space available, hehehe.
I really would like the get ThinApp though, I won't lie....but I don't have the money...plus it's a luxury, not a necessity. I rely on my parents if I want anything, which is usually a no anyway.
Hope this helps, though.
Like ThinApp, a majority of the apps you find packaged with Cameyo are packaged illegally. Heck, Cameyo's own online directory is mostly illegally packaged apps. Illegally packaged freeware (with licenses that exclude modification). Illegally packaged open source apps (apps like Firefox which prohibit the use of trademarks with modified versions). Etc.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
doesn't mean all of them are.
Just because a software package can make cracked software does NOT mean that the software package itself making it, is illegal.
It is the fault of the users who portablize, NOT the product that DOES the portablizing.
It's like saying: Windows is an OS on which people can crack activation codes, ergo, Windows is illegal software. No offense.
Also the cameyo apps that are online are NOT pre-cracked. Some might be the pro editions of whatever, but in those cases, they're usually, if not always (since I use it to package my own, for personal use, I don't share or use shared editions from others' collections), demos that STILL require activation thereafter.
And open source allows modification and redistribution. That's the whole reason the source is openly available. If it were a problem, how come Chromium has so many variants? How come Firefox itself has so many variants? Wouldn't they be violating law? The fact that there's no lawsuit and they have all been thriving for plenty of years, both small-time and well-known, is pretty good data to show there's no violation.
And one other thing: it's one thing to use a cracked copy of a software for which you didn't pay, but it's completely another to be redistributing a portablized edition of a software piece that is allowed, first of all, again I say, for modification and such said redistribution, and disregarding jaywalking-sorts of laws.
I do NOT condone stealing software, but forgetting to properly adjust a name or logo is like listening to a downloaded mp3, or jaywalking, or loitering in a place where there's a sign that says no loitering.
There's stuff to be concerned about, and there's other stuff that no one anymore really most of the time bothers with, because they themselves know it means nothing to 80% of the population.
And last time I had checked, the previous statement made was to say that most people who USE ThinApp don't have legal copies of the THIN-APP software. You've said nothing of the packaged applications made with it. Again, I bring you to the Windows OS example. Another example: SoftICE. A legitimate debugger. Just because a lot of people used to use it for cracking keys, doesn't mean the software itself should be illegal. Yet another example, Tor browser is used by hackers to hide morally repugnant activities. But then again, the software itself is not illegal, and there are major legitimate uses for it. For instance, bypassing in dictatorships which censor the internet. Another example, A browser, even Firefox or Chrome, or Internet Explorer, can be used to explore torrents on TPB, or even cracked contents in an RAR, not a torrent, and download those using the built-in download manager. Does that mean the browsers themselves are illegal, just because they make the process possible? In the age of computers, everything makes everything possible in one way or another. You can't just say because something is used one way, that we're going to ban everything. Why not USBs? USBs were used by Edward Snowden to smuggle top-secret documents. Does that mean USBs should be illegal? FTPs used by web hosters and their clients can be used for pirated content storage. Should we ban the internet? It all comes down to picking your battles.
Again, no offense meant, I'm just expressing my opinions, which I have no doubt are correct or incorrect, but simply logic-intuitive.
And what of Cameyo's Firefox? I didn't see any variation, aside from the ones that are necessary to make a portable application work. And PortableApps edition isn't innocent in that either. Shouldn't I report this to someone...?
For clarification, you're not allowed to repackage or redistribute anyone else's copyrighted software without permission regardless of the price. To do so violates copyright law. Open source software generally includes a redistribution right built into the license. Most freeware licenses permit unmodified redistribution, though some do not (some publishers only want you downloading from them directly, for instance). Most open source licenses permit modifications but some specifically prohibit using the same trademark name and logo (Mozilla Firefox, for instance). Nearly all freeware licenses prohibit modification without permission.
That out of the way, Cameyo is repackaging nearly all of that freeware in their app directory without permission, taking it out of its original installer and placing it into their own proprietary package. They are doing the same with Firefox, which specifically prohibits modifications with the Firefox name and logo (registered trademarks). The only way you can do the above is with the express permission of the publisher/copyright-holder. Cameyo has no permission to do this from Mozilla or the other publishers I checked with.
Mozilla Firefox, Portable Edition (the version of Firefox we distribute) is a specially licensed version of Firefox that we have a license from Mozilla to publish. That's why you'll see this at the bottom of the Firefox Portable homepage: "Mozilla®, Firefox® and the Firefox logo are registered trademarks of the Mozilla Foundation and are used under license." We have a license to do the package. Same as we do with Opera and other freeware. We don't engage in or encourage illegal distribution of software. We actively prohibit and campaign against it.
My point wasn't that Cameyo 'could' be used to make illegal packages (nearly everything could be used for something bad). My point is that it *IS* used to create them and the publisher itself is encouraging this illegal use and distributing these illegal packages on their own site. That's why we don't permit linking to Cameyo's site.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
not being able to perfectly curb utterly potential actions is not the same as "encouraging."
And as said, Firefox was NOT modified anymore than PortableApps' edition has been to make it work, portablized. So if one's a violation, doesn't that mean so is this site in violation? I don't see your point because it all comes down to modification, of which there still, is none, aside from the mechanical necessities.
And if I remember correctly, I didN'T link to Cameyo. I was simply offering a suggestion. Is this how unwitting people who are new to a community, just trying to be friendly and give kind advice, are treated?
If so, then it's not so much a community as it is a tennis ball court. Communities are for suggestions and helping. Just because I offer one suggestion to be friendly and help people be more productive, in no way, shape or form, makes it socially acceptable to attack that person. All I did was make a suggestion. You don't have to heed it, but you could at least be reasonable and friendly. After all, it's not like I'M suggesting pirated use....I'm just being a participant in discussion, and quite on-topic at that.
Oh and repackage? Is that an admittance of guilt for the whole of THIS community? Last time I've checked, this whole community is based around repackaging applications to make them more portable....or did I get that wrong?
It's one thing to disagree, and it's another regarding how you handle expressing such feelings. Can you please heed that bit of advice, because that IS why this is upsetting me: because I feel, I was just trying to help people, and I'm being attacked for what OTHER people do, in which I have no involvement. That's not really fair in my opinion. Just consider this food for thought, I ask of you.
also this is the mission statement from the GNU official site, read carefully, please: The Free Software Foundation is the principal organizational sponsor of the GNU Operating System. Our mission is to preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, modify, and redistribute computer software, and to defend the rights of Free Software users. Support GNU and the FSF by buying manuals and gear, joining the FSF as an associate member or by making a donation, either directly to the FSF or via Flattr.
The thing you're missing is permission. It's really simple if you just think about modifications with permission vs without permission. Mozilla only permits distribution of their official digitally-signed installers of Firefox. Anything else is a modification and is not permitted without explicit permission unless you recompile Firefox without the name, logo, and link to official update server. Mozilla has given permission to PortableApps.com for Firefox Portable and Ubuntu for the slighty-modified version of Firefox distributed with Ubuntu. Cameyo does not have permission from Mozilla for the repackaged version of Firefox that they are distributing. Thus, they are distributing it illegally.
Similarly, Cameyo is repackaging and distributing freeware software that doesn't allow modifications and repackaging for redistribution. PortableApps.com engages in no such practice. We follow the open source license which gives us permission (and redistribute the source code as required), seek trademark permission where the open source license isn't sufficient (like Mozilla Firefox), and ask permission from the publisher to repackage freeware software.
Again, it's not about modifications... it's about what modifications are permitted by a given license and, when they are not, getting permission from the publisher to make them.
And as for unwittingly recommended, I didn't claim you linked to them. My first reply was simply explaining why we don't recommend Cameyo and their illegal activities. Just a few sentences about what they do, not criticizing you. I'm unsure why you're taking Cameyo's illegal activities so personally.
Cameyo's own website is distributing illegal software that the publisher hasn't approved of. That's why Cameyo is viewed as a less legal option than, say, ThinApp... though ThinApped apps are not permitted here either as they are nearly all done with cracked versions of ThinApp. While most of the portable packages out their packaged with ThinApp are illegal, the ThinApp publisher isn't hosting and encouraging users to download those illegal packages the way Cameyo is.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
We don't deal with ThinApp at all here. If you have a legit license, then I'm sure the VMWare folks would be happy to help you. If not, you'll have to ask elsewhere.
Vintage!
Hello, why should portableapps dont create an own creator for portable apps?