On Sat, 2011-01-29 at 09:03 +0100, Oleksandr Shneyder wrote: > Am 28.01.2011 20:44, schrieb Heinz-M. Graesing: > > Hi John, > > > > Am 28.01.2011 17:55, schrieb John A. Sullivan III: > >> Even if we ultimately standardize on vcxsrv, I suggest we still keep the > >> option to not install it in the installer and the option to use Other in > >> the client for those who already have a commercial (or future FOSS) > >> Windows X Server. At least, that's how we thought it through. Thanks - > >> John > > > > I would suggest not to make this part of the installer. Of cause it > > should be part of the client configuration. The problem I see by > > modifying the installer is that some companies have already made the > > client installer part of their software deployment solution (a lot of > > people asked for a "silent install option"). > > As the installer is addressed to normal users, this might be a bit > > confusing. > > Hello, > > I have two new Ideas. > > 1. We providing a "netinstaller". With defaults option it will get > x2goclient and Xming from net. There is "advanced>>" button in installer > dialog, which opening for user advanced options. Advanced options are: > "get vcxsrv instead of xming" and "not download Xserver". > > 2. We providing 3 nsis-installers: x2goclient+xming, x2goclient+vcxsrv, > x2goclient without Xserver. The first installer is default and it is > easy to found on download page. The two other installers are hidden > under link "other downloads" or "experimental" or "name is not > important, you understand what I mean". > > > I would prefer second choice, because for large installations (I think > John have such one) is easier to provide a direct url to installer or > installer itself then by every installation configure installer to get > vcxsrv. There are less chances, that user make something wrong if he > just clicks with his mouse without understanding what he making. And is > easier to us (we don't need to create "net installer") > <snip> Hi, Alex. Thanks for being so open to input. I also prefer option #2. I'll certainly defer to whatever you choose but I'm really not certain we need three installers. By doing so, users must still make the same decision (well, the downloading users which I suppose are more likely to be admins than regular users in large deployments, that is true); we've just shifted it from the installer to the download page.
I would think a single installer with sensible defaults, with vcxsrv labeled as experimental, and with a big warning that says, "Do not change the defaults unless you know what you are doing," would be fine and simpler to maintain. Whatever we do, it does seem like we are moving forward! Thanks - John _______________________________________________ X2go-dev mailing list X2go-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/x2go-dev
