And how many times does the database get corrupted? I've never run into it and the conditions that would cause a corruption would equally screw any other installer, since it would have to be a run that got interrupted mid-install.
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Adam <[email protected]> wrote: > Next will you be suggesting for people to use MMC snapins as opposed to > writing standalone applications, because it is shitty standalone > applications that do things and not MMC? > > You can use WIX/MSI to write shitty installers too if I am not mistaken. > I've seen brilliant NSIS/InstallShield installers and shitty MSI installers. > And vice versa. > > As an end-user I must say MSI also tends to piss me off, particularly when > the database gets corrupted and what not. Good concept though, but I > question the way it is implemented. I have written about what I think about > MSI in another mail so no need for me to repeat myself. > > But what I am trying to suggest is that shitty installers will be shitty > installers. You can write shitty installers in > SuperDuperUltraInstallerLanguageSoGoodItIsGuaranteedToMakeOtherInstallersShitTheirPantsAndGoBankrupt > and they will still be shitty installers. > > > On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 23:49:26 +1000, Alex Ionescu <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Oh, I do believe shitty software/installers do this. >> >> Microsoft's technologies do not, however. >> >> So use WIX/MSI, not NSI/InstallShield. >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Alex Ionescu >> >> On 2011-06-04, at 9:23 AM, Kamil Hornicek wrote: >> >> I'm in charge of 40+ PCs running mostly XP at work. Believe me when I >>> tell you people do write their own code (or use the available API >>> incorrectly) for installers or some online activation bullshit. I came >>> across several installers/apps that were unable to detect or use our proxy >>> (we also use wpad for proxy autodiscovery via dns) and I always had to >>> connect that PC directly to our gateway to make stuff install which is >>> annoying as hell. I am not making this up, pay me a visit if you think >>> otherwise. >>> >>> K. >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Ionescu" <[email protected]> >>> To: "ReactOS Development List" <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 8:20 PM >>> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ... >>> >>> >>> Again all of this is irrelevant: since I think you are a Linux user, I >>>> can understand why you are confused. >>>> >>>> On Windows, all HTTP communication is done by WinHTTP and/or WinINET, >>>> nobody writes their own custom socket code. >>>> >>>> WinHTTP/WinINET control the proxy settings for the machine. In fact, if >>>> you use Google Chrome on Windows (or Safari) and go to the proxy/connection >>>> settings, you will see "IE's" proxy connection dialog -- because these >>>> settings/dialog are owned by the OS Library, not the individual >>>> applications. >>>> >>>> Therefore, the installer will use 100% the same settings as the web >>>> browser, including the same protocol. >>>> >>>> So, as I stated, if the browser can download foo.exe, so will the online >>>> installer. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Best regards, >>>> Alex Ionescu >>>> >>>> On 2011-06-03, at 1:50 PM, Kamil Hornicek wrote: >>>> >>>> whatever you use for downloading the installer has to be configured to >>>>> connect throught the proxy and also to use its dns services for host name >>>>> resolving. if the installer itself isn't aware of the need for proxy >>>>> server >>>>> (or is not able to connect through socks or whatever the proxy uses) it >>>>> won't be usually able to resolve the hostname it's trying to connect to >>>>> (depends on the exact network configuration). also the default route to >>>>> the >>>>> internet would be missing or direct outgoing connections would be blocked >>>>> (which they usually are otherwise you wouldn't be forced to use the proxy >>>>> server in the first place) so the traffic generated by the installer >>>>> wouldn't have any means to reach its destination. >>>>> >>>>> I didn't want to derail the discussion and I apologize for that. I'll >>>>> shut up next time. >>>>> >>>>> Kamil >>>>> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alex Ionescu" <[email protected] >>>>> > >>>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" <[email protected]> >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 7:03 PM >>>>> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Since online installers use HTTP, and the user got the installer off >>>>>> HTTP, what would a proxy server change? >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Alex Ionescu >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2011-06-03, at 12:33 PM, Kamil Hornicek wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I didn't want to spam this discussion but I have to.. What every >>>>>>> other software company also does is refusing to believe someone might be >>>>>>> behind a proxy server. If you go this way, please make sure the >>>>>>> installer >>>>>>> doesn't need a direct connection. Also online installers are generally a >>>>>>> major pain in the ass if you don't provide an offline installer too. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex Ionescu >>>>>>> To: ReactOS Development List >>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 03, 2011 5:56 PM >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why separate installers for x64/ARM? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Just do what every software company this side of the century does: a >>>>>>> 400kb installer which lets you select the packages you want, and >>>>>>> downloads >>>>>>> them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Alex Ionescu >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2011-06-03, at 11:38 AM, Zachary Gorden wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Spoke with Amine and Daniel. I've agreed to the lesser evil of >>>>>>> bundling the FULL cmake. Reasons are if we want the BE to be flexible >>>>>>> enough to be used for more than just building ROS, we can't gimp cmake >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> the belief that no one will need the things we didn't include. This is >>>>>>> again >>>>>>> on Windows. I remain uninvolved with decisions about the Linux BE. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:34 AM, Colin Finck <[email protected]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Timo Kreuzer <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My vote on this: >>>>>>> CMake: bundle it, optional on installation >>>>>>> x64/arm: create individual installers >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * CMake: bundle it, go for the (minimal) version without an >>>>>>> installer. It's nothing "exotic" to install after all, just put it >>>>>>> together >>>>>>> with the other utilities in RosBE. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * x64/arm: If build tool sizes are staying like this, create >>>>>>> individual installers. Just for testing, I'll try an x86/x64 multilib >>>>>>> build >>>>>>> of Binutils and GCC though, would be nice to know how much smaller it is >>>>>>> compared to separate x86 and x64 compilers. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So in general, I agree with Timo :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - Colin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Ros-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ros-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ros-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >> > > > -- > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > _______________________________________________ > Ros-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev >
_______________________________________________ Ros-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
