É uma pergunta que incomoda qualquer um que tenha se apaixonado por aplicativos portáteis: por que não todos aplicativos portáteis?
A sessão de perguntas e respostas de hoje nos é oferecida por cortesia do SuperUser, uma subdivisão do Stack Exchange, um agrupamento de comunidades de perguntas e respostas da comunidade.
A questão
Leitor de superusuário Tom adora a organização limpa que os aplicativos portáteis oferecem e quer saber por que tudo não é portátil:
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?
Nós certamente somos fãs de aplicativos portáteis e também gostaríamos de chegar ao fundo das coisas.
A resposta
O colaborador do SuperUser, David Whitney, oferece algumas dicas sobre por que muitos aplicativos não são portáteis e como o Windows impõe uma espécie de acordo anti-portabilidade:
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.
Infelizmente para os fãs de todas as coisas portáteis, muitos aplicativos - especialmente aplicativos grandes como o Office - permanecerão firmemente fixados e distribuídos em todo o sistema operacional.
Tem algo a acrescentar à explicação? Soe fora nos comentários. Quer ler mais respostas de outros usuários do Stack Exchange com experiência em tecnologia? Confira o tópico de discussão completo aqui.
