Tixati v2.31 Linux x64 Portable

I am running Tixati as a portable on a GNU/Linux system. I have noticed that it creates a folder  /home/username/.tixati The folder contains two files; "lock.dat" and "uds.dat"

I don't think this should be happening. If someone is running Tixati as a portable then all folders/files should be written into the portable's own containing folder unless the user has specifically set things up otherwise. I would go so far as to say this is possibly a bug - portables shouldn't be writing outside of their containing folder unless explicitly instructed to do so.

Could someone please fix this.

Not a bug, both the Windows and Linux versions have to associate themselves with .torrent and magnet links (registry in Windows, home folder in Linux) and also set the app-lock so that the shell won't launch duplicate instances when clicking links/files or an accidental re-launch happens.

When the program closes, these files are deleted anyways.  And many other "portable" apps do the same thing, it is not unusual or forbidden at all, as long as cleaned up after.

Well that's one way of looking at and trying to explain it but there are a couple of assumptions in there that should be pointed out.

(1) The folder and files creation don't need to happen in this way. There is no reason at all why they need to be written to disk in the locations that they are written to. Just because some other portables do this (and by no means all - I have some portables that restrict their writing to locations only in the folder in which the 'exe' file is contained) there is no reason why Tixati can't just write these files to the same location that the Tixati 'exe' is stored in. Just because other portables do it shouldn't be wheeled out as a justification for why Tixati needs to do it.

(2) The folders and files are deleted. Really? The folder and files still exist on the hard-drive, deleted or not - it's just that you can't ordinarily see them if they are deleted. However, with a disk editor, it would be perfectly possible to retrieve them. On computers 'deleted' does not equal 'gone'. So your assumption is wrong.

Tixati portable should be writing all it's files into the folder, or sub-folder, in which the Tixati 'exe' file is located, unless given explicit instructions to do otherwise. In this way it can emulate the best of portables, not the worst.

In Linux, if you want a singleton instance, you need a lock file, and you need a domain-socket file to do inter-proc comm to launch files from the shell.  These have to be in a common place, independent of the location of the launched binary.  Period.

I wouldn't expect someone without experience developing Linux apps to understand the reasons, but it's pretty standard knowledge that this absolutely is the way things have to be done.  The devs clearly know what they're doing in this area, it's not easy to get right.


Expecting any app to do forensic hard-drive cleanup/scrubbing after every file deletion is getting even more ridiculous.  Should all traces of the app be scrubbed from the shell too?  The environment keeps MRU lists, command history, system logs, and other evidence, better take care of all that too while we're at it...

as explained by others, not a bug

closing thread