OK, I just upgraded to version 10 from 1.6.
The upgrading of apps, as well as installing new apps, are both nice features, but as I looked through everything, I discovered a problem. Two of the apps that I had (mplayer portable and spydllremover portable) were now "gone" from the portableapps pages, but there really isn't any way to inform the user of that (in fact, I am more likely to think "no update? that's good."). It seems to me that the user should be informed when an app is removed from the repository, which isn't very likely to happen without a good reason.
As for the apps themselves. Sorry to hear about mplayer. There aren't a lot of good choices for comprehensive media players, so I guess I will try vlc again (I haven't used it in years, and was put off by the almost incomprehensible difficulty of trying to save streaming media at that time). No, I refuse to use smplayer due to a security issue (at least in 0.6.9 - 0.6.10 is at this moment sitting on sourceforge unannounced, but I doubt it fixes the problem).
I don't really understand what happened to spydllremover. Yes, I read the information on this page:
https://portableapps.com/apps/utilities/spydllremover_portable
But the app still seems to exist, albeit at a new home (with some releases subsequent to the last portableapps release):
http://securityxploded.com/spydllremover.php
Finally, since I have taken the time to make a post, I want to suggest (I am sure people have mentioned this many times before) that with the plethora of new apps released in the past few months (many of which duplicate the functionality of existing apps), it would seem quite helpful for users to consider the experiences of other users summarized in a numerical fashion (that means allowing users to rate apps).
I should also take this opportunity (since I have never posted before) to express thanks to all of the volunteers (and other users) who have expended so much effort in making the portable apps platform what it is today.
Visit the Community page
Join our forums
Subscribe to our email newsletter
Subscribe with RSS
Follow us on BlueSky
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on LinkedIn
Follow us on Mastodon
Follow us on Twitter
If all you have done is simply updated the platform all existing programs on the stick still exist. Portable Apps Platform update does not remove any programs from your drive, I have many none PA program so nn my stick and they still exists, after many, Platform updates.
As for spydllremover, I do not personally know the reason for its discontinuation, however I would venture to guess that perhaps the distributor is no longer in support for its distribution?
“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
Well, of course it should not automatically remove apps. But if there are "official" portableapps that have been removed from the repository (especially for security reasons), then the application should notify the user of that fact. This shouldn't happen only when updating the platform - it should happen each time a check for updates is performed.
Somebody is making new releases and it ranks as the number six download for the year at its new home. I certainly can't comment (intelligently at least) on the technical merits of the program, but again, if there is a problem, users should be informed of it.
Nothing is gone you have the files, if you follow the forum then you will note the reasoning. Ask teh programmers why? They are not our apps we just make them portable
“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
It seems you are completely missing the point. IF an app has been removed from the portableapps repository (most likely for some important reason - such as security), how are users supposed to find out about it?
I don't care if I still have the files. I want something to hit me over the head and say "you should no longer be using this app."
Most users are simply not going to go through every app that they have (I don't know what is typical, but I have more than 100) and check each one ("is this app still available on portableapps.com?, is this app still available on portableapps.com?, is this app still available on portableapps.com?,...").
There (badly) needs to be a way of informing users of problems with apps, and the best place to do that seems to be in the update functionality. It really doesn't need to be anything more than "you have the following apps installed that are not currently available on portableapps.com" followed by a list. No deletions or removals - just a message that will provoke the curious into learning why the particular applications were removed.
In my case ( 10 gb worth) I have probably 40 apps that I made for self or are already portable but not in PA format, so it would remind me of it every time I updated. Of course we are all responsible adults and all have the knowledge that if we read the forums we can always get answers? Oh and that is not to mention the hundreds of apps in developmental stages I use.
“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
I believe you are deliberately trying to be difficult. It would not be terribly complicated for the portableapps.com installer to only check apps that is has installed - not every app on the device.
What percentage of ordinary users ever look at the forum? I would be surprised if it were even five percent. Nice that you have such a cavalier attitude regarding security, but with a project as large as portableapps, there should be (at an absolute minimum) a security page that lists apps with vulnerabilities, to raise the awareness of those who check it (and who don't spend a lot of time wading through the forum). Yes, I know resources (time) are tight, but as with other major packagers of apps (thinking specifically of linux distributions) it is simply the responsible thing to do.
There are no issues with having SpyDLL still installed. It still works. It's just that the publisher we had a distribution agreement had a falling out with the developer who was working on it with them. The details aren't fully known to us but seemed a bit sketchy, so we didn't pursue an agreement with the new publisher. (PortableApps.com is unique among portable software sites in that we get permission to publish all apps that require permission to repackage.) The old version is still fully functional and has no nastyware in it, so there's no need to warn people about it or ask them to remove it.
MPlayer, it turns out, never should have been in the directory. They haven't supported a proper Windows build in years. Every stable build had security issues that went unpatched forever. Now they only have nightly builds available for Windows. SMPlayer is your best bet if you really want MPlayer. 0.6.10 will be posted shortly. Realistically, MPlayer has never really supported Windows and likely never will, so it's simply not an option, portable or not. VLC is by far the best open source media player.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
Hi John,
Thanks for your explanations (not easy to find) Obviously, getting permission is a good policy. I stand by my belief that some sort of notification to users of dropped apps is a good idea (it was a bit unnerving to me just to see some apps disappear).
The developers do have a bit of a reputation for being difficult to work with. I guess mplayer2 (at http://mplayer2.srsfckn.biz/) does not have a proper gui yet.
I have completely banned (despite numerous protests) smplayer 0.6.9 from all of the networks I manage. Yes, it is for a security (design) flaw (and if *I* can find it, it has to be pretty bad). I haven't looked at the source code for 0.6.10 yet (I will try to do that in the next day or so), but unless they have fixed the problem, it will remain banned (and not something I would ever consider using even as a portable app).
I will take another look at it. Like I said, saving streaming media was absolutely impossible a few years ago (it required arcane commands, and did not even work with most of the common formats). Maybe that has been fixed.
Thanks again for your reply.
You should ban mplayer outright as nearly every Windows build has had security issues. MPlayer2 appears to only have one dev, so I wouldn't really rely on it to get up to speed and be regularly supported in multiple languages properly anytime soon. MPlayerWW seems to be a little better supported and is being worked on as a possible PAF release.
Saving streaming video is an extremely niche feature (and actually illegal in many countries). Judging a 'media player' based on that is a bit unfair, as its primary purpose is to play media, not rip or convert it. There are apps devoted to ripping and converting streaming media sources and those are far better suited to the task.
Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!
I should have mentioned I don't allow that on Windows either. It is regularly used on non-Windows machines here where security gets a little more attention.
It seems like a popular feature in my experience (far too much so to describe it as "an extremely niche feature"). As for the legality, portableapps.com provides at least two (or three if you include Opera) bittorrent clients. The vast majority of their actual use is illegal, and in far more countries.
It is an "advertised" feature (that did not work well in the past), and one that is not unrelated to its main task (unlike many of the "social" features that are becoming prevalent in media players now). If a program has to download it, it is not terribly difficult (in theory, at least) to create a container for it, and dump the media to a file. Mplayer has done that very well for many years. Media conversion does seem far more separate (I can more easily accept that that function belongs in a separate application).
Yes, but with several subsequent versions available, it is probably not going to be as effective as the user expects.
If you are knowledgeable, which you appear to be, and have noted the difference then you searched and found an answer why still argue the point? If you feel that the old version is somehow less than that of the new then you as the user need to make an informed decision as to whether or not you wish to continue using the program. The choice is always yours as to what you decide to install and use on any computer. Seems more like you just want to find an issue, John, the owner of the site, has explained his point, I as a no body, have explained my point, and you as another person has expressed theirs. Looks like you will not get the answer you desire here and that is ok, in life there are questions that never get answered. Ultimately there seems no point in responding any further or clogging up the forum with more posts, John sees no issue nor do I so unless you wish to code a work around to your issue, perhaps it is time to "let the dead dog lie"?
“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
My main point for this post was to make the suggesting that the portableapps program (or at least the web page) should include information on why apps were removed. I believe this is a very reasonable suggestion. Most users are simply not going to have the inclination to search through a hundred or more apps to manually verify every one of them. That is a task ideally suited for a program to do.
This is not just about the two programs that I mentioned. Other (more serious) vulnerabilities occur all of the time. As a packager and redistributor of hundreds of apps for millions of users, I just believe that a site as important as portableapps should have SOME kind of security policy, rather than simply ignoring the issue.
I don't really have anything more to say beyond that (except that I sadly lack the programming skills necessary to contribute code, or else, believe me, I would).
I think this is a valid idea, although I can see problems implementing it with the current version/setting of the updater. Maybe a new category (Issues) could be added at the top to inform users if there is a problem with an app.
Other than that, I can understand that one cant blame portableapps.com if a user uses outdated/insecure stuff. I for ma part havent heard of any opensource software listing/distribution system warning their users.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
that would require a user to read the forum which is what np is agianst having to do
“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
I meant the category to be added to the top of the updater.
"What about Love?" - "Overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate." - Al Pacino in The Devils Advocate
The reality is that the vast majority of users simply aren't going to read the forum.
I deal with a lot of very smart people who are only average technically, and most of them don't have the time or desire to keep on top of developments the way someone like you does (they want it to "just work").
This is even more true now that the platform can update apps automatically. I imagine the number of visits to the web site has gone down since then (which is good for the cost of hosting the web site, but makes it tougher to keep users up to date with information).
Portableapps has become an entire ecosystem (in a manner of speaking), and (similar to a mid-size Linux distribution that also packages and distributes applications), I believe that security deserves a greater emphasis.
The idea of adding functionality to the updater does not seem technically difficult (again, I am not a programmer). Just create a flag when portableapps installs an app (as opposed to it coming from somewhere else), and add an option to warn users when an app (that was installed by portableapps) is removed.
I don't understand the opposition to even something as basic as another rss feed solely for security issues (which would probably contain mostly browser updates, but would tell those users who carry a stick around "for emergencies" (as opposed to regular use) that they should update that application right away.
--------------------------------------------------
I intend this to be my last post in this thread (no promises, though
), so let me just ask a simple question.
Suppose I am an average (or below average
) user who installed mplayer a few years back, when it was in the portable apps repository. Now I have just updated, and see that there are automatic updates (which of course left mplayer untouched). How am I supposed to find out that there are security problems so severe that the app was removed from portableapps?
Remember in this scenario I am an ordinary user, and not a network admin who spends a lot of time on security issues.