This is my question.
New: Blank and Secure (Jun 03, 2024), Platform 29.5.2 (May 30, 2024)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
Please donate today
New: Blank and Secure (Jun 03, 2024), Platform 29.5.2 (May 30, 2024)
1,100+ portable packages, 1.1 billion downloads
Please donate today
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
This is my answer.
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 refute that answer and request a higher source to comment, preferably the head of the development team Sir John T Haller
That is our answer. After John, I think I would be the next most qualified to answer (having worked on the Installer and being involved in the PAF spec too), and if you think about it, it's obvious that we do need version numbers.
First of all, why would we want to not have version numbers? Version numbers in installers (of any type) are a Good Thing™. It makes it easy to manage multiple versions, obvious the version you are dealing with, and ever so much more. Bear in mind also that many people will not use the PortableApps.com Platform.
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
It's on the web page and future versions of PA menu will have a "news" section embedded or something of that nature so there will be no confusion about what you are downloading.
Every time I download a PAF I must delete the old one when I just want to replace it.
I'm not so simple I cannot look at file properties so any assertion that it is utterly necessary is only for the sake of you guys and not end users.
I disagree. It is for the end users. Many users are not very computer savvy. They may not know how to open the file properties, or that if you open the file properties a VersionNumber field often exists.
The "news" section you mention could make things more clear, but as Chris mentioned, not everybody will use the PA menu, and IMHO it would be a pain to have to keep checking the website to make sure you have the latest version of all your PortableApps.com applications.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
The whole idea of the update mechanism is so you don't need to care!
If you want to download the file manually, you know you are getting the latest one by virtue of using the website otherwise the PA.c updater downloads, installs and deletes the file.
Is that how it's meant to work?
Version numbers are unnecessary IMV particularly since the whole platform is infinitely stable.
In any case there can always be made something in the menu that tells you what version(s) you have notwithstanding using the updater component.
Not everyone will be using the update mechanism, as that is a part of the menu, and many users do not use the menu.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
Zach
The core of the updating mechanism "updater" will tell people what version is currently installed then they can at their own leisure go to the website, even if their updater is turned off.
In fact, I wish every installer (not just paf.exe) included the version number. Thankfully, it has become the norm for most OpenSource apps that you find.
And your objection that every time you download a PAF you must delete the old one is contradicted by the title of your post.
Now that there is a proper updating mechanism (I'm assuming you mean the PortableApps Updater that is included the Platform 2.0b5) having version numbers in the file names causes no inconvenience to you at all, since the updater automatically downloads and installs the apps, and then deletes the installers.
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
Yeh but while I dig the idea of the updater even though I know it's limited to downloading entire packages (at least at first) I don't want to be bound to it either and that is what is so good about PA.c, you have choice but versioning is more an internal matter and I don't want to have to be bothered.
No version numbers? So next week I drop in see Firefox hmmm is this an old one or a new on? Lets see I got Firefox, but maybe it is newer than my copy, I guess I will download it....Then I install it...ooops same one I had I see by looking at the program. TIME WASTED!!
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.” Dr. Seuss
PA.C is evolving all the time, making great strides conceptually, as well as philosophically.
Simply because things have been a certain way since time immemorial doesn't mean they must stay the same now, particularly when PA.c is essentially *not* so open source as it is about good software.
User ignorance is certainly a reason to stay the same. As a computer science graduate, and in working as a software developer, we are taught, and have learned through experience, that it is better to assume the user is not at all computer savvy. Advanced users will find workarounds, make tweaks to settings and make suggestions for the developers to implement, but a majority of users expect all required information to be presented in an easy to find and easy to read manner, and to be able to just click-and-go.
The developer formerly known as ZGitRDun8705
How is it ignorance when there are no version numbers? How do I as a user know what download is the latest?
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.” Dr. Seuss
Just go to the website how else?
Otherwise check file properties, or use the menu to tell you which version of what is currently installed.
PA.com should not be limited to any particular ethos simply because the vast bulk of product(s) is/are based on a certain paradigm.
in your scenario we would have to add a date to the upload? Since no version numbers then Firefox=Firefox=Firefox old or new
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.” Dr. Seuss
needs to know, so versions have to be marked somehow. Each file has some kinf^d of version marking, this is so from big brother MS, or under linux or what ever apple. One can not just compare some human readable file name with the same file name, that will have no result. The files need to version, it is basic principal of any software being developed.
Even if you make new software, you compile something or so, it is given some version number just to distinguish it from similar builds before.
Try to right click on some files under windows, select properties, and see all the info there. Computers can not do without.
Otto Sykora
Basel, Switzerland
That versioning comes from the installed versions as opposed to the original (cosmetic) installers.
Not the portable versions, the original ones from their sites. Firefox, Thunderbird, GIMP, OpenOffice, LibreOffice, Blender, etc., etc., etc.
All of them include the version numbers in the names of their installers.
Go to Sourceforge. Pick any app at random. It will have the version numbers included in the installer file name. Keep looking, maybe you'll find one that does not include version numbers.
Including version numbers in file names is the overwhelming industry standard for installers. There's no compelling reason for PortableApps.com to deviate from this practice.
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
No offence but this place must take the lead, not follow.
I kinda doubt that PortableApps.com will take a lead in the open source movement. Besides that, there isnt a movement of any sort imho, just an idea with several ways to get there.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
I tend to disagree on the basis that in the very least PA.c improves accessibility, in that to begin the registry is not needed, nor the start menu (don't know about linux) and it has it's own menu, so why not make all apps portable because it really is the future, and as you'd know registering files and this and that can all be done on the fly so setting the pace is not a stretch of my imagination at least.
I wouldn’t remove them either.
For me its info at a glance, without having to right click or anything.
If you don’t want them, use the updater. And if you want to keep a copy of every installer, it doesn’t take a lot of time to through the folder and delete the older versions.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
That information is already on the website.
You'd have to be simple (or a fool) not to know what you are updating or already have updated.
As an end user I need simplicity, and these packages are all under 50 mb so download normally in one go, ie "unbroken" so the extra hassle of having to delete out of date files defeats the purpose of downloading, hence the updater but sometimes I still would like to have the original exe and I am quite capable of checking the file properties. No need for a science degree.
I like to have a copy of most of the apps I installed in case I need to install them to a second usb drive or a friend comes over and I tell him about it and he wants apps on his stick right away.
In these both cases it would be very inconvenient to redownload the apps.
Besides that maybe the new updater could have an option to keep the downloaded installers. I know this has been asked a couple of times in the forums.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
Of course the updater should have the choice as to keeping the exe's or not.
In fact it should manage them as well notwithstanding showing the user what is installed as opposed to what is available.
The less you have to go to the download page the better, but we will see how effective the updater actually is at some point I'm sure.
If it's all about your convenience, and your special workflow, you should find a way to solve that for yourself.Hint: It could be very easily achieved by deleting the version number the first time you download a paf and then just overwriting it every time you (re-)download or update - problem solved. You see, there is absolutely no need to discard a well established standard for a special workflow (yours).
On the other hand - deleting older packages from time to time seems much less time consupmting than to check if an online version is newer with every download.
btw. removing the version numbers would definitely complicate things as then you need an additional way to identify the version that you now see at first sight.
I for one add version numbers manually to downloads that don't include it to keep track of updates. Sometimes it is a good idea to have a fallback version when an update introduces a new bug.-edit-
I see it was all said before. I seem to be easily distracted from finishing a post today...
I would prefer to keep the version numbers as that would make it less confusing to know if I have the latest version. If having the version numbers bothers some I offer a possible solution, when you download the file you can change the file name at the bottom of the download dialog window to remove the version number. As a new version is released simply click the current file in the download dialog window to rename the new file to the same name as the old one. Windows will then ask if you want to replace the current file, just click yes and the file will download with the current name. this will allow those who do not want the version number to remove it, and those who do want it to keep it.
Artos
Program a component in the menu and you may think differently as how will you know until you do.
Remember the motto "anything is possible if you are...."
Cheers
You pose quite an argument....BUT it is just that an argument....I could wish that every time I went to the bank and took out money that they would give me extra, boy that would make my life easier. But that will never happen as it is not a reasonable choice neither is your
“Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.” Dr. Seuss
The fact that you feel personally bothered by having to do basic housekeeping of your download folder is not really a compelling argument. And you undermine even that, because you've stated that you prefer to use the updater - except that sometimes you want to keep the original exe. Hardly a reason to change the current practice. By the responses to this thread, it seems that most people prefer the current system.
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
There should be a choice as to how information is presented and packaged.
Why must so-called "web services" which at the end of the day are mere static pages continue to be the norm?
I'd have envisaged a more considered argument in this case.
Version numbers will remain as part of the file names for multiple reasons:
1. So previous versions can remain on SourceForge and not be overwritten
2. So users can easily archive multiple versions themselves
3. So 3rd party distributors like Download.com and Softonic will easily be able to tell which version they have hosted vs which is available
4. So users will know what version they have without needing to start the installer or bring up properties
5. So it's easy to tell what version is being download from a simple URL in the case of direct URLs
6. So we can easily retain multiple versions and keep them handy in the case of a build regression
That's not even including the fact that it's pretty much standard and expected by nearly everyone these days. So the answer is yes we need the versions numbers
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Right, so as superficial as that all sounds the high and mighty OSI movement can't even cobble together an internal xml file to expose properties of a package.
Give me a break, micro-computing is at least 20 years old now.
P.S. Good luck with the updater core
Maybe the world is not exactly as you'd imagine...
No but if the updater simplifies the process of getting this stuff well and good but I am talking about the world thereafter.
Cheers
It's all so superficial unfortunately.
Why can't OSI people make an internal XML file expose properties of the package.
Micro-computing is at least 20 years old.
You'd think by now it would be solved.
On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
I find it bothersome to read those numbers on houses and businesses. I can just as easily run up to the house and look in the windows, and figure out if it's my house or not.
Micro-housing is over 4000 years old. You'd think by now the architects would have solved this problem by putting an XML file just inside the window with all the pertinent housing info on it just for me.
I made this half-pony, half-monkey monster to please you.
Computers should be able to solve almost any problem that requires some form of indexing or identification/registration.
It is just the people behind them that is the problem.
And you don't need to write adresses on letters as they should include an xml with all needed information.
But wait, thats antique communication. So while we're on it, we better we get rid of email adresses instead as the information could be included in an xml as well.
in our new RI meta world.
Unfortunately, it seems the sarcasm was lost.
This discussion seems to be getting nowhere, and it is not a useful discussion; we are keeping version numbers for all sorts of reasons which have been discussed in this thread and more besides. There is no cause to remove version numbers, and there are lots of reasons to maintain them. With this summary, I will lock this over-active thread.
scant_regard: you are approximately the only one who wants to remove version numbers. As soon as you say something like "It is just the people behind them that is the problem", you have lost your case; the version numbers are there catering for the users, not the machines. Internal representations are not easily visible to users. Numbered filenames are.
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