Having a special portable apps version is all cool and so on, but I start to wonder why the original apps don't get PAM compliant. Okay, I admit the folder structure is maybe overly complex and an extra launcher app is not what they had in mind when developing, but to have just an app that does not fiddle in registry, does not put stuff in user folder or windows system, features all dependancies needed in its own folder.
Who DO apps (ab)use the registry, user folder and system folder anyway. I noticed some times that one of the reason for that is "because it conforms to windows standards" or "Linux puts stuf there and there".
Let's hope in the future more open source apps will be PAM compliant by default and just need an launcher and PAM installer added. Can't John poke some developers to have this in their design philosophy?
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
Kinda like getting the auto manufacturers to make more fuel efficient cars. More and more programs are portable right out of the box and the better we do here on this site the more popular portable apps will become.
Many programmers cater to that segment of the public which knows little or nothing about computers. Many people could not even handle installing a program let alone doing things like backing up a profile or setting up a directory structure for a portable app.
Life is about the journey not the destination!
The Kazoo Spartan