Extensions on Vivaldi standalone
Vivaldi 3.1.1929.34 64 bits on W10.
I want to use Vivaldi "standalone" (~ portable?) from an external SSD drive. Everything works fine but when I move the drive to another machine all the extensions disappear – and don't come back when the drive is again on the original machine. Apparently the folders with funny names containing the extensions' software are deleted.
Is there a solution? Thanks,
P. S. Can I also get rid of the Installer folder containing setup.exe & vivaldi.7z?
TbGbe last edited by
when I move the drive to another machine all the extensions disappear
That is expected to happen - see https://help.vivaldi.com/article/standalone-version-of-vivaldi/
Standalone is NOT the same as portable!
Extensions and login database are encrypted and not portable.
I tried to virtualize Vivaldi with Cameyo, but it didn't work (sigh).
So no portable Vivaldi, too bad…
So no portable Vivaldi, too bad…
All Chromium related browsers are not portable because Logins and Extension data is encrypted with a unique key.
Vivaldi can not build its own special portable, such development and patching would take too much human resources.
@TbGbe Not this again lol.
vivaldi portables are being built on puppy linux just fine.
@Priest72 Where can we see the code for such Portable Vivaldi? It does not exist.
The above link is to the puppy linux forum where someone is producing vivaldi builds.I have not read the thread entirely myself.
@Priest72 The version does not work at all and results in loss of login data.
And this means: Not portable.
@Gwen-Dragon ah right ok thanks,
Haven't used those versions myself and seems iffy downloading from a google drive .
Portable was referenced so assumed that is what they were.
@Priest72 Ah. Many people assume "standalone" means "portable." So someone calling Puppy Linux builds "portable" doesn't make it so.
@Ayespy That’s the reason why Vivaldi shouldn’t call it “standalone”, as discussed many times before. It’s misleading everyone who has an interest in such a build.
@JohnConnorBear You make that sound more nefarious than it actually is.
The puppy linux community is solid.
Those guys are making specific builds for specific purposes.For example some puppy users do not like the idea of running pulseaudio for sound in firefox and apulse would be much more preferred,so firefox builds are produced using apulse as standard to make it easier for new users of firefox...
Sure it can be achieved with a simple script using geany.
Chromium builds are produced with the pepperflash fully integrated into chromium without all the hassle of trying to get it to run externally...these builds are issued to make it easier for people as some users were having issues getting pepperflash to work.
I could go on but there is a valid reason for these community builds in puppy linux plus they are fully open source.
Priest72 last edited by Priest72
@JohnConnorBear said in Extensions on Vivaldi standalone:
It makes no sense to complain about Vivaldi recording user data to sell it
Could you elaborate on your sentance here please..so in a nutshell your saying vivaldi does sell user data.?
There is a purpose to those builds which is to make software easier to use for new puppy users.
""some puppy user"
Community member which there are hundreds globally.
Blackbird last edited by
The puppy linux community is solid.
As @JohnConnorBear notes, "... it is a matter of trust...", at least for those myriad users who have no familiarity with the individuals creating code forks on puppy linux forum, hence they have no basis for genuine trust. You may know solidly (to your satisfaction) that those puppy forum individuals are trustworthy and never have nor ever will take advantage of your trust, but it's a much different situation for those who don't frequent that forum over an extended period of time. Trust must be earned, and that takes time and observable events.
That said, what a competent coder chooses to do in finding a way to fork Vivaldi code to provide true portability (assuming, of course, it's indeed fully and truly portable) may be one thing for puppy linux, and it involves a certain level of effort. Creating similar portability for Windows versions and assuring compatibility with other Linux versions is likely a whole different ballgame and level of effort... not to mention the added necessity to proof every aspect of browser operation every week or so when a new chromium update impacts the various Vivaldi code packages.
If portability for Vivaldi (in its various forms and over time) were slam-dunk easy, then I'm sure its developers are more than capable of the task. That such portability doesn't yet exist implies that it's a significantly more complex situation than faced by the puppy linux coder... and, as such, competes for resources with all the other things the Vivaldi developers have on their plates.
Blackbird last edited by Blackbird
@Ayespy That’s the reason why Vivaldi shouldn’t call it “standalone”... It’s misleading everyone who has an interest in such a build.
"Standalone" is not equal to "portable" and possesses its different name for a reason: a standalone version is not "installed" into Windows in the usual, fully-integrated manner - instead it 'stands alone' (or apart) from the OS in terms of installation entanglements with certain OS defaults, user accounts, etc. Some other standalone programs indeed happen to be truly portable, others are not. But there's nothing in 'standalone' that inherently requires nor implies 'portability'.
"Portable", on the other hand, clearly means portability away from a given system. Any confusion in the terminology rests with a user who hasn't bothered to determine what each term actually means in the product maker's terminology usage, though this confusion indeed occurs more commonly than it ought to.
@Priest72 Some user complaining that Vivaldi records and sells user data does not mean that Vivaldi does so. Vivaldi does not. I think the point was that it makes more sense (to johnconnorbear) to trust a company with a known public face and verifiable identity and claims, for which they may be held accountable, than it does to trust a random user you don't know in an internet group of which you may or may not be a member.
@Blackbird I know, we’ve been through this before. What’s better, correct denomination and everyone confused, or a new term and no one will think it’s portable anymore? I have argued before and still do, that the latter is the lesser of two evils.
@JohnConnorBear, I do not trust the Google Store and even less when there are no references of the origin in many of the extensions that appear in the store, it is always worth thinking about it three times before installing store extensions, personally I prefer to do it manually from Github or Sourceforge .
But in general, it is advisable not to trust your own shadow on the net, no security soft can replace common sense.
However, saying that Vivaldi is more reliable than Google is already more than can be said of most of the others.