Adam... ReactOS will not be Win Vista/7 ;)
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 <ionucu@videotron.ca> 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 <drakekaizer666@gmail.com> 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 <geekdundee@gmail.com> 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 <ionucu@videotron.ca>
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" <ionucu@videotron.ca>
To: "ReactOS Development List" <ros-dev@reactos.org>
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" <ionucu@videotron.ca
>
To: "ReactOS Development List" <ros-dev@reactos.org>
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 <colin@reactos.org>
wrote:
Timo Kreuzer <timo.kreuzer@web.de> 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
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
--
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
Ros-dev@reactos.org
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev