portability

[fgagnon]

I'm quite curious about the benefit/convenience/usage/scenario for portability.

At the moment, I have but two computers I normally work at.
Before retirement, I had one other, connected to a mega-network, where having x2 for myself was indispensable.
Currently, other than the occasional visit to family where I might be asked to help find "lost" files or fix a 'puter problem, I have no need for a powerful file manager like x2. [& then I simply install/uninstall from the setup file & licence code on my memory stick]
Certainly there is no need for x2 public computers in (h/m)otels on travel nor at public libraries where I might web surf when I don't have my own computer.  :shock:

Only thing I can imagine is professional IS staff / network admin convenience.  And there I see x2 value soaring because of large real-dollar productivity enhancement to the using organization - not what I think of a "personal use" scenario. I would call that a corporate license scenario, and if it were up to me I would base license fees on number of workstations on the network where x2 could be installed (even if only network admins use it).  
{something like $100 for up to 10 workstations, then a sliding scale to around $1000 for unlimited at, say, 500 workstations & up.}

Folks, please educate me on your scenarios. I am a curious sort.
(and it might help nikos think out how to best implement portability)  8)

[gerald]

I am very much into portable software and try to move to portable versions as they become available. So please go for it, I would be interested. I must say, that I have not tried the "xplorer2 lite edition portable" yet. Maybe that would be enough for me in the meantime. But as I said I would like to streamline all my sotfware.
Thanks
Gerald

[longfellow]

I'm interested in a portable version.

I'm glad to read that portable x2 won't write to the reg. I don't want to leave traces (or have to remove traces) from client's computers.

I also have some privacy concerns about having my name and email embedded in the code. What if the code gets cracked? What if I have portable x2 on a USB stick and the drive gets stolen? Instead of using name and email, it might be better to use some sort of customer ID that only makes sense to Zabkat.

@fgagnon: My usage scenario is simply to have my own working environment (e.g., file manager, browser w/bookmarks, etc.) on whatever computer I happen to be using. Going back to Explorer after using x2 is painful.

[nikos]

What if I have portable x2 on a USB stick and the drive gets stolen

then we're both shafted!

There's no point having info that only makes sense to me, if you read the posts above you'll see there's a need to provide incentive to "keep honest people honest" (and careful!), hence the personal details. If it's any help the details will be encrypted and only visible in the About box

[Mr.Pleasant]

@ fgagnon's scenario:
I think I pointed out my scenario in an older discussion on the forum, but for the sake of the thread I'll bring it up again.
I'm working as a freelancer for a lot of different companies. Documentation, translations, that is my business. So that means a lot of file handling. Usually I'm working on location: I get a computer at the client's office to work on. To stay on speaking terms with the local network administrator, I'd better not fill such machine up with my favorite apps/trialware. Unaware of the great pieces of software I bring to their shores , these people are usually quite mistrusty of anything they don't know. Well, I think they have their reasons to be so...

So I carry my credit-card sized hard drive with portable, no-footprint, apps, including X2 light. But what pain it is to realize that, when at work, just when I really need it, I have no access to scrap containers, multipaste, omnifinder etc, etc.

So I can't wait to get a portable x2 pro, and to use it to its full potential.

[kev]

i think there is a possibility for a better solution that combines portability and security of the product...

i mentioned this before in another thread, but this was ruled out at the time, and may since have been forgotten...

since the license key is encoded and saved to HKLM\SOFTWARE\ZabaraKatranemia Plc\xplorer2
"v1_Install", i previously attempted to create portability with the existing version by saving this key into a .reg file, then creating a batch file that added this key back into the registry (regedit /s key.reg), as well as subsequently launching the executable. (i also added all my settings to the reg file for convenience.)

i think this was a good idea, but unfortunately failed due to some other reason such as the trial registry activity, as nikos pointed out by the brief comment :

but  licencing involves more than just a registry key, a topic i'm not going to elaborate upon

so this idea didn't quite work... but rather than creating a completely open version, why not create one with this idea in mind that *does* work, as follows :

add a routine to xplorer2 that checks for the presence of the license key in a text file, and if its present, checks it, and then runs normally in licensed mode. if not, start up the normal trial reg checks and the rest.

is this not the best of both worlds, as you wouldn't need to build a separate version to allow this portability, it wouldn't leave a key in the registry, and most of all it wouldn't be an unprotected binary? (you could go further and have it check for settings.reg as well and add those if present, but that is just icing on the cake.)

ok this would still be piratable if the license.txt was distributed with the .exe, but that is true now anyway if someone carries their key on their pen drive to get close to portability,

surely this is an ideal solution?

[longfellow]

...there's a need to provide incentive to "keep honest people honest" (and careful!), hence the personal details. If it's any help the details will be encrypted and only visible in the About box

I understand the need to "keep honest people honest", but even honest people with the best of intentions can be outwitted by nefarious tricksters. I don't want to have to chain my drive to my person like government agents who carry "for your eyes only" documents in briefcases handcuffed to their wrists.

But it's good that the details are encrypted.

Unaware of the great pieces of software I bring to their shores, these people are usually quite mistrusty of anything they don't know.

This is SO true..  :)

[nikos]

i'm sure if you get your USB stick stolen there will be many more intricate details on your person leaked other than your name in some about dialog!

or if you have any other alternative suggestions for such an unlocked version let me know

[kev]

or if you have any other alternative suggestions for such an unlocked version let me know

i thought i just did!  

can anybody hear me?!

[nikos]

so what's the advantage with that?
if anything you made the freeloaders case easier, now they only need to publish a small licence file in e-mule!

[kev]

now they only need to publish a small licence file in e-mule!

how is that in any way different to publishing a license key on a website like they can do currently?!  or via e-mule, or whatever. it doesn't get any easier than pasting 931E7F00E2DA........

it isn't, it's no different, and no worse. it is just a smarter way of reading in the license key. let's put it this way :

as it stands x2 can be launched with a valid key sitting in a text file in the current folder, and knows nothing of it. so the user has to open the text file then copy and paste the key into x2.

that's a pretty dumb requirement, and is the *only* barrier to portability. this whole issue wouldn't exist if that hurdle was removed and automated, with no additional work required.

so the advantage is exactly that - it is a small but clever change to your existing product that negates the need for special builds, unprotected exes and the like. it loses nothing but gains portability, without paying the price for your work making special builds, and our money in having to buy the unprotected build.

can you still not see this logic?

[nikos]

first of all i would have to modify the existing licencing to make it "dual" (either registry or text file). Then to satisfy the "honesty incentive" I would have to put somebody's name and email in that file. But as you can see anybody can modify this text file and put foobar as the name. QED

[kev]

ok now we're talking.

yes i see that this involves changing the existing licensing to make it 'dual', but it struck me that this is preferable to releasing a separate build with no licensing whatsoever, both in terms of your workload and by never letting a unprotected build out onto the net.... perhaps i am wrong about this, you are the dude in the chair, i am merely here.

and yes, you lose the "honesty incentive". but i saw this as only being a consequence of releasing the unprotected build in the first place. without that, no need for the honesty incentive. and since after all you can surely identify the name/email of the owner of a leaked key, you could name and shame them anyway. plus joebloggs@hotmail.com might not actually mind when his fake name and address is visible in the unprotected build he distributes on behalf on cracks.com or whatever...

[nikos]

buying with a credit card you have to give a proper name and email (otherwise the credit check will fail and/or you won't receive the key).

anyway, if you have another idea i'd be glad to listen

ps surely a small price to pay for portability?

[wasker]

first of all i would have to modify the existing licencing to make it "dual" (either registry or text file). Then to satisfy the "honesty incentive" I would have to put somebody's name and email in that file. But as you can see anybody can modify this text file and put foobar as the name. QED

Why not to make the key in a file a function of name and email listed in the same file?

Like:
==
Joe Honest
joe@honest.com
saaslkhfa902p4723rkljqwehr023<some key sequence which is ENCODED using first two lines>asldfhasldjhfalsdfw0ae89ru213
==

Now, if someone will publish this file, you at least know WHO. And changing the name in the file doesn't make sense, because it will screw up key decoding procedure.