Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Integration of programs/applications/stuff on computers
Why is everything crazy-integrated these days?
Was just talking on IRC about Firefox. I want to run multiple installs of Firefox with different user profiles. But Firefox by default throws stuff in user data and stuff. And then uses that.
Why can't it just install to its own directory by default, like C:\Firefox, and then leave its config files in there, and stuff, and make itself self-contained?
I don't like jumping through hoops to separate things. I already had to use AdBlock Plus to block Facebook's trying to integrate itself into like every other site I visit.
Heck, what happened to the days when all you had to do was unzip an archive and put the files in your location of choice? Then all you do afterwards is double-click the .EXE file. It was THAT SIMPLE.
Want convenience? Create a shortcut and add it to your Desktop or (drag it into) your Start Menu.
Props to Opera for having a portable install.
Fun fact: If you find something in my Program Files folder, chances are it is an application I didn't install. I put all my installations elsewhere.
Comments
http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/firefox_portable
Also, Firefox actually does have support for multiple user profiles, it's just that it doesn't actually tell you about that feature or make it intuitive to use.
stop using windows lol
It's not just a Windows thing; as I mentioned, Facebook and a number of other sites are trying to make a highly-integrated web experience, which presents lots of problems if you want to keep different categories of activities separately.
And I assume a similar thing is happening to MacOS too.
Well, this part
is definitely a Windows thing.But the idea of putting program data from an external source (be it web, floppy, USB drive, or whatever) on a computer's hard drive, and then running the program directly, without involving lots of bells and whistles...that is common to all operating systems.
What I meant was, the part where you can't do that is primarily a Windows thing.
How easy is it to navigate the filesystem on a Mac and specify where you want to put stuff? How much bells-and-whistles settings changes happens when you install a program the usual way (installer file, I'd assume)? How easy is it to, say, install a program "portably" where it doesn't require or use these sorts of integration, or alternatively, how easy is to edit such integrations and change (or remove) their functions (such as telling a shortcut to run a program with extra parameters)?
(I assume you're talking about using a Mac. If you're talking about Linux, I might know a tiny bit more about it, though my questions still apply.)
I was talking about Linux. (You thought I was talking about OS X? Man, clearly I need to loudly express my dislike of Apple more often.) From what I can tell these things are easier on OS X than they are on Windows, though.
In any case, on Linux if you're using a package manager it's going to be similar to Windows in this regard by default, and it's unlikely to allow you two install two Firefoxes. I'm not sure how much flexibility apt and friends give you in that regard; it's been a while since I've used Linux. Probably things won't break if you move them around, unless something else depends on Firefox for some reason.
Most Linux distributions are not going to go out of their way to make things like this easy, because most people aren't going to want to install two Firefoxes, and there are good reasons for putting programs in the "program files" equivalent by default (so other things can find them, mainly). However, you've essentially always got the option to compile from source, and then you can do whatever the fuck you want.
And in general, if you want to use software in a manner that its makers don't want/expect you to, you're going to have a much easier time doing in on Linux.
Well I figured that if you're talking about Linux, you're also talking about a large variety of usage styles, as well as a much more tech-savvy userbase in general. And with that comes a high degree of customizability.
Though I guess they're trying to use the package management system to standardize things.
the problem with a Linux is that nothing is for Linux.
it requires a pretty high level of computer knowledge to even get a simple Linux OS running, much less learn how to do what you want with it.
so it's kinda silly to just tell someone to "stop using windows or OSX".