> Thanks, I was not aware of that LyTeX is still alive. > Apparently this version writes something to the registry (this can > also be done by portable versions). However, I wonder that they > provided a beta version as portable LyTeX
They don't, at least not for me. I installed the version they had years ago and since then I have always only overwritten the LyX subfolder with the installers that I have downloaded from ftp.lyx.org without using the "updater" included in LyTeX. And in parallel I have kept the TeXLive subfolder updated with the TexLive package manager as well. Has worked perfectly across releases. Probably the only thing that's still left from the original LyTeX (must have been 1.6.x back then) is the folder structure and the startupt script. > >> This error message should only occur if you try to install LyX > >> 2.1rc1 over LyX 2.1rc1. This is checked by the Windows registry. > > > > There can be nothing in the registry, since I don't have > > authorisation to write to the registry on this computer. > > You always have the right to write to the registry section > "HKey_Current_User". On this computer, all "transient" entries there should get erased upon startup. Yes, they are that sadistic. > > Which is a restriction that's just as compulsive and imperious as > > those idiotic installers are. Seems the most important concern of > > certain people is to prevent others from being able to do their > > work. > > I don't understand. The LyX installer allows you to install LyX also > if you only have a guest account on a PC. > However, if your Admin denies to allow you to install things, he has > a reason. So better blame him. He doesn't have a reason. I know - way - more about computer security than him. (Which is not difficult, all Windows "administrators" I have met so far were hopelessly clueless morons.) It's just a professional sickness. IT "administrators" compulsively lock down the computers beyond uselessness (to the point that ever more often "bring your own" is the only way to get anything done any more), software developers/packagers compulsively require running pointless "installers", and in between, like punchbags are caught those people who have to get the actual productive work done. > >> Hmm, or did you once installed LyX 2.1beta? If so you must > >> uninstall LyX 2.1beta first (these were testing releases (for > >> LyX-only not the installer nor LyX's dependencies) so that an easy > >> upgrade is not possible). > > > > A "dumb" installer would simply overwrite the previous installation > > As aid, this is in case of beta releases no feature. We are only a > small group of developers. Providing also full support for beta > versions would cost us a lot time we don't have. I am not asking for that. I keep a backup of the last known working LyX subfolder I have. So if anything doesn't work, I'll just sent a corresponding rant to the list and "roll back". > And don't forget we all have a private life and a job - we develop > LyX in our spare time! I don't have a private life. Among others, thanks to the obscene absurdities of modern office "work" environments where all kinds of fat tapeworms wag with us dogs. > >> Could you please be a bit more polite. You apparently found a bug > >> but there is no reason to be abusive! > > > > I guess that implementing the "check" function is an extra effort to > > make, which is totally pointless imho. I see exactly *zero* "added > > value" from this "function" (actually a refusal to provide a > > required function). The installer just shouldn't care for whether > > LyX is already installed or not and overwrite everything, basta. > > This can destroy your LyX settings so that it can become unusable. It won't destroy anything that I can't roll back by simply trashing the LyX subfolder that's "kaputt" and by replacing it with the last known working version. That is *one* of the *many* advantages of installer-free application distribution. No need for installers, no need for uninstallers, backups are trivial and so are "rollbacks". This principle of application distribution has been known and perfectly working at least since 1984 (Atari TOS, MacOS, a little later of Acorn RiscOS, I don't know about AmigaOS). Unlike "installers", which have *never* actually worked reliably. > > Just like "installers" (resp. software requiring those) are anyway. > > User-friendly software has to be packaged as simple zero-install zip > > archives. And the Windows "registry" is only good as an open barn > > door for viruses, trojans and other malware. > > Oha, I now fully understand your Admin that you are not allowed to > install programs. No computer for that I have ever had the personal reponsibility (and over that I had full authority) has ever contracted a single virus or other "malware" in 25 years. The only occasions when a computer that I had to use got a virus were the usual, well known barn doors, that were wide opened by the choice of "OS", applications and by the configuration that was locked down by the administrictator, so that I couldn't even close those barndoors myself. And those obnoxious "virus scanners" never found them. I had noticed the anomalies that they caused, I had to Google for the remedy procedure, I had to explain to the administrictator what was going on and what to do, etc. and so on. And even after I had demonstrated the "open barn door", the administrator refused to close them and/or to let me close them by giving me the authority over my worktool. Sincerely, Wolfgang
