Adam... ReactOS will not be Win Vista/7 ;)

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Adam <[email protected]> wrote:

> And what about people with computers older than 2007 and/or people who do
> not want to (and/or cannot) pay $$$ for an upgrade and/or people who do not
> want to install an operating system that takes up 15GB of disk space?
>
>
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 03:59:46 +1000, Alex Ionescu <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>  Update to Windows Vista+, which has KTM.
>>
>> --
>> Best regards,
>> Alex Ionescu
>>
>> On 2011-06-04, at 10:21 AM, Adam wrote:
>>
>>  A number of times (eg. .NET install/AV install) I have had it happen at
>>> the end of the install. Then when I attempt to uninstall it there are errors
>>> produced regarding it (often not just after a fresh install of Windows; I
>>> mean after using the computer for some time - particularly after updating
>>> Windows Installer) then it makes the product difficult (if not impossible)
>>> to uninstall.
>>>
>>> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 00:07:44 +1000, Zachary Gorden <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>  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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
> 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

Reply via email to