You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm sorry I didn't actually try the software after reading the config where it seems it only supports a single config per machine.
What about multi user support where every account on the machine could have their own config? In order to support separate, differently named profiles that each user might have. It seems that currently it's only possible to launch a similarly named profile for all users, at most. This will work somewhat if every user's Default profile is a hardened profile for opening new links...and fails when it's not.
The easiest path might be by loading per-user configs saved in User\Appdata\Local\BrowseRouter , where entries with same browser names would override existing entries in main config, and maybe add some new ones too? For example when the user has installed Chrome Canary which only installs into the personal appdata folder. A default per-user config could be easily created by copying the relevant browser definition lines from the machine config at first run.
So in the end a user could define that they want to use chrome = "C:\...chrome.exe" --profile-directory="Profile 4"
as the default.
In theory users could just create a profile named Hardened and set that as machine default but creating named profiles in (at least) Chrome based browsers seems to be a hit and miss affair -- sometimes a "Profile ##" profile will get renamed to "Newname" or "Profile ## Newname" when renamed inside the browser, and sometimes not. The logic in how that works eludes me, and might be different per Chrome based variant too.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi, and thanks for the quality feedback. Indeed, BrowseRouter only loads config.exe in the directory containing the executable.
The current way suits my needs. So at the moment, I can't put the time in to implement those features, nice though they would be. I am happy to review pull requests.
I do have a survey linked from the README where I am prevalidating the idea making a better version of BrowseRouter, e.g. one with a user interface, but I could not give it away for free.
nref
changed the title
Multi-User Support?
Support Per-user config.ini
Sep 29, 2024
Hi, I just released Linklever. It's like BrowseRouter, but it also works on macOS and Linux, and it has a GUI. The configuration is done via GUI and is unique for each user. I hope that will suit your use case.
I'm sorry I didn't actually try the software after reading the config where it seems it only supports a single config per machine.
What about multi user support where every account on the machine could have their own config? In order to support separate, differently named profiles that each user might have. It seems that currently it's only possible to launch a similarly named profile for all users, at most. This will work somewhat if every user's Default profile is a hardened profile for opening new links...and fails when it's not.
The easiest path might be by loading per-user configs saved in User\Appdata\Local\BrowseRouter , where entries with same browser names would override existing entries in main config, and maybe add some new ones too? For example when the user has installed Chrome Canary which only installs into the personal appdata folder. A default per-user config could be easily created by copying the relevant browser definition lines from the machine config at first run.
So in the end a user could define that they want to use
chrome = "C:\...chrome.exe" --profile-directory="Profile 4"
as the default.
In theory users could just create a profile named Hardened and set that as machine default but creating named profiles in (at least) Chrome based browsers seems to be a hit and miss affair -- sometimes a "Profile ##" profile will get renamed to "Newname" or "Profile ## Newname" when renamed inside the browser, and sometimes not. The logic in how that works eludes me, and might be different per Chrome based variant too.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: