4 ms·

Windows Portable Applications... copy them into a folder, and run them. No installation required. Because there isn't a stable system interface table in Linux

Windows Portable Applications... copy them into a folder, and run them. No installation required. Because there isn't a stable system interface table in Linux (i.e. INT 21, AH=9 prints a $ delimited string in MS-DOS, and has since the 1980s), you can't just run an executable. The closest you're likely to get is Justine's APE - Actually Portable Executable[1] to get something you can distribute and just run. [1] https://justine.lol/ape.html https://justine.lol/ape.html

turtlebits 3y ago
That's pretty much how most Mac apps are installed.
archargelod 3y ago
I have a gripe with Portable Windows Apps or more precisely with a way they are distributed. Web is filled with scams, malware, phishing or just insecure web pages.Even when a source code of a program is public and download page is genuine, how could I ever trust the binary? I can't, but I can verify the source code (or take a risk that someone already examined it) and trust transparent CI chain. So even if it comes from the respected developer I won't run a notavirus.exe, unless it was compiled automatically in a public docker container. P.S. Another option for more portable linux executables is musl C library + appimage.
self_awareness 3y ago
There is AppImage[1], which packs a lot of stuff into a SquashFS filesystem, appends it to the executable, so everything is in one file. [1] https://appimage.org https://appimage.org
pjc50 3y ago
> you can't just run an executable. Yes you can! You can run unmodified Win32 executables from the late 90s on present-day Windows systems and they work just fine. Windows has a great reputation for continuity. There is a stable system interface, it's user32.dll and friends. You might experience a bit more pain relating to the Visual Studio runtime (vcredist) or use of COM components, but those are work-aroundable. APE is something rather different: it's portable across different operating systems with different executable formats! Quite the technological achievement.
- tomcam 3y ago
  GP meant Linux doesn’t just let you run an executable and was making the point that MS-DOS does
colanderman 3y ago
> there isn't a stable system interface table in Linux What do you mean by this? Linux is pretty good about maintaining a stable syscall ABI. Whereas my understanding is that Windows and BSDs define the compatibility boundary at the C library level.

turtlebits 3y ago

That's pretty much how most Mac apps are installed.

archargelod 3y ago

I have a gripe with Portable Windows Apps or more precisely with a way they are distributed. Web is filled with scams, malware, phishing or just insecure web pages.Even when a source code of a program is public and download page is genuine, how could I ever trust the binary? I can't, but I can verify the source code (or take a risk that someone already examined it) and trust transparent CI chain. So even if it comes from the respected developer I won't run a notavirus.exe, unless it was compiled automatically in a public docker container. P.S. Another option for more portable linux executables is musl C library + appimage.

self_awareness 3y ago

There is AppImage[1], which packs a lot of stuff into a SquashFS filesystem, appends it to the executable, so everything is in one file. [1] https://appimage.org https://appimage.org

pjc50 3y ago

> you can't just run an executable. Yes you can! You can run unmodified Win32 executables from the late 90s on present-day Windows systems and they work just fine. Windows has a great reputation for continuity. There is a stable system interface, it's user32.dll and friends. You might experience a bit more pain relating to the Visual Studio runtime (vcredist) or use of COM components, but those are work-aroundable. APE is something rather different: it's portable across different operating systems with different executable formats! Quite the technological achievement.

tomcam 3y ago
GP meant Linux doesn’t just let you run an executable and was making the point that MS-DOS does

colanderman 3y ago

> there isn't a stable system interface table in Linux What do you mean by this? Linux is pretty good about maintaining a stable syscall ABI. Whereas my understanding is that Windows and BSDs define the compatibility boundary at the C library level.