As this Subforum is called Bla & technology I think my not to describable via subject babble has to end up here:
I am currently working on some compilable script language project and by now I envisioned a filesystem where next to symbolic- and hardlinks something like a clonelink should exist. I try to avoid naming the exact script language and proprietary system I am using for my diploma now, as I do not want any discussion about that software - and the workflow problem I now have is somewhat generic as it can also be applied to similiar tasks besides scripting that includes an overall package (directory/files) structure where in testing stuff out the whole bunch of the package has to be processed, but for each trial only a few files are modified. As a prerequisite to understand my post I have to add that I always/"most of the time" work from Commandline and with Notepad2 (replace with editor of your choice) only, so I am not using any IDE or such.
And now to the"problem": I found myself now in a position where I have a stable base of the package/project folder and a work folder with a complete copy of the source. And whenever I made some changes (trial&error/revert to base) I copy files over again from the stable source to the work directory and so I am dreaming right now of a filesystem where the work directory is just made of some form of links which alike to symlinks are just pointing to the corresponding file in the stable_source folder, but once the file accessed via that "clonelink" is modified it will be written only above the "whateveryoucallitLink" (preserving the link state in an alternate stream or whatsoever) and if accessed again (by editor, compiler or whatever) it will be the workcopy that is accessed. But when the file is deleted it will become just the underlying link to the source again (of course there must be a way to delete them, with a clever system it will be automatic if the whole work directory (root of the clonelink(s)) will be deleted, or with a special delete command (alike to del and rmdir).
Whole point I am only writing this to distract me from work right now and to voice my frustration as that copy/replace stuff eats up time. Besides that I was also questioning myself If there already is some exotic (operating&|file)system which can do something like that (not that it will be of any help to me, because I am bound to win with my project. Though I am really curious about it )
P.S.: I've made up my Pseudo as a (Tub)MUD user derived from Sha(dowA)n(d)Dra(gon) in the early 90's of the last century, unaware that it was/is an anglo-saxon female name... :sigh:
j7n: well, well... your reply reminded me that I totally missed the point (I was trying to reach through my experiences to complete with an - ) answer(ing) to the question of the OP for portable across platforms, whereas I only mentioned the benefits for a singular platform/desktop-pc (or the hazards therein). So let me recapture my thoughts and continue with:
I am not sure, but it must have been around the time of the End of the Amiga or its OS Successors, where the idea came up of semi-compiled installer packages which where compiled/optimized during install on the particular platform/hardware/os setting... an idea which (as it, e.g. under windows, would need an installed compiler (like windows preinstalled with VSExpress, GCC or such) ) didn't really make it through to nowadays yearcycle. I am now wondering why portable apps are not, at least under *nix systems, evolving on that idea - all configuration/settings in the directory of the app, the source/half-way-compiled binaries within that directory and with starting the app it would compile anew under a formerly not known system -- ok, would call for lots of free space available on that "portable"-medium and under windows it would need the presence of compilers, but it could be... hey wait, thats what Java/Python and such is usable for... so to the OP: either we mean "portable" within a given platform and compiled binaries making use of every advantage there is, or we mean "portable" across platforms and we give up optimization/speed/resource management for the benefit of being "portable" explain that to the fancycancy used fanboys of either Windows or *nix platforms who prefer 3D/Touchpad/Phone effects-overladen-unusebility over plain and simple (productivity) GUIs :p
Just to add my 2ct - but from what I've read I just have to agree with some of the previous posters... I like to cite cameyos slogan here "because software should be used, not installed" - in fact, except for some x64 versions where there is no portable alternative and using 64bits makes sense (like gimp) or sadly not avoidable for the majority of bought proggies I want&|need on my system - it's always the portable version I am using not as portable but as fixed on my desktop system, it is just more convenient for me. I am making regular images of my system partition and do revert from time to time to them, and then it is always welcome if the changes/settings for those apps is not lost - though I have moved my_documents and such to another partition the roaming/appdata folder still is on c: and e.g. before I thought about symlinks I always lost my changes with EAC-Profiles between partitionimages. If EAC would have sticked to its old (single user/portable-app like behaviour) of storing its profiles within the app-folder that wouldn't have been a problem. Another example would be Gaim/Pidgin, where some years ago I encountered a problem with its incompatibility towards my updated install of GTK, so I switched to the portable version so that I could keep the up2date version of GTK installed and still use the messenger. Or when upgrading from XP x64 to Win7 as I have done just recently it was nice to avoid the need of installing X Apps again, as I could just use 'em right away from my old Program Partition - e.g. my Opera Install (Of course, system close applications like AV, DShow Filters, Runtimes and such are still kept on the System Partition, but those have to stay consistent with the image - other apps should rely on ini/config files and not the registry and such - common files like dlls and registration with copyprotection systems is another topic)... endless topic, no ahead, I am all in for "portable"
And Btw., is it only me beeing blind or is the new OF not mentioned/linked on the main pages of O*.com? I always have to go (never bookmarked it so far) via the old dead address or via their dev-blogs... :sigh:
P.S.: as I've visited their side not only with 12.16 but also with firefox I am not thinking conspiracy here
I encountered that problem just once & and for me closing the browser and starting it up again (and or deleting the cache) solved it. I remember many threads over at (ex)myopera about it and i am unaware of a def. solution to the problem - but what I remember is that most of the time a switch between offline/online status (WLAN failure;de-/reactivating NIC;hibernation or such) could have been the culprit - and I always thought in regards to Operas (enhanced) way of dealing with backward/forward/caching of pages it somehow makes sense that the browser may have problems under those circumstances... maybe you can find some of the old threads at some web-archive for further investigations.
cursed be windoofs [german term] 
But as long as it is not in any widely used *nix distro I feel somewhat 
about it.... still 
)
That's a tunic! Not a gown! 
ahead, I am all in for "portable" 