C’est une question qui décoiffe quiconque est tombé en amour avec les applications portables: pourquoi tout applications portables?
La séance de questions et réponses d’aujourd’hui nous est offerte par SuperUser, une sous-division de Stack Exchange, un groupe de sites Web de questions-réponses animé par la communauté.
La question
Lecteur superutilisateur Tom adore l’organisation propre que fournissent les applications portables et veut savoir pourquoi tout n’est pas portable:
I’ve recently been trying to ‘install’ stuff a lot less on my Windows machine (I hate installers – I need to know where programs put stuff…), choosing to use portable or standalone versions of applications instead.
I put them all in a ‘Programs’ dir on a drive separate from my Windows partition, so whenever I reinstall, I have all my applications available with minimal effort and on the plus side, I get a nice clean setup.
Applications like Office and Creative Suite still require me to go through a horribly long installation process where a thousand random libraries and tools are thrown across my system.
Why do Windows apps still need installing? Why can’t we just drag Photoshop to a folder à la OSX and just have it work? Does anyone else focus on portable apps, or am I just being OCD about the whole thing?
Nous sommes certainement des fans d’applications portables et aimerions aussi aller au fond des choses.
La réponse
David Whitney, contributeur à SuperUser, explique en détail pourquoi de nombreuses applications ne sont pas portables et comment Windows applique une sorte de mécanisme anti-portabilité:
Installers are a result of years of evolution and a little bit of (simplified) history helps understand why they do what they do..
The Windows 3.1 model suggested config.ini style configuration files per application with supporting shared libaries going into system folders to prevent duplication and wasted disk space.
Windows 95 introduced the registry allowing a central store for application configuration replacing many configuration files. More importantly, windows configuration was stored in the same place.
The registry became bloated due to applications not cleaning up after themselves. DLL hell happened as a result of multiple versions of the same shared libraries overwriting each other.
.NET introduced the concept of app.config (almost ini files mark 2, this time with a little more structure saving developers wasting time writing manual parsers). The GAC was introduced to version shared assemblies in an attempt to prevent DLL Hell.
In Windows XP and moreso in Vista, Microsoft attempted to define the userspace as a place to store user data and configuration files in a single standard location to allow for roamning profiles and easy migration (just copy your profile) with the applications installed in Program Files.
So I guess, the reason is that “applications in Windows are designed to live in one place, their shared dependencies in another, and the user specific data in another”, which pretty much works against the concept of xcopying a single location.
.. and that’s before you have to configure user accounts, and setup and ensure security permissions, and download updates, and install windows services…
xcopy is the “simple case” and certainly isn’t a best fit for everything.
Malheureusement pour les fans de tout ce qui est portable, de nombreuses applications, en particulier les grandes applications telles qu'Office, resteront fermement fixées et distribuées sur le système d'exploitation.
Avez-vous quelque chose à ajouter à l'explication? Sound off dans les commentaires. Voulez-vous lire plus de réponses d'autres utilisateurs de Stack Exchange doués en technologie? Découvrez le fil de discussion complet ici.
