Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...

[Colin Finck]

[e-mail] wrote:
> if not exist "CMakeLists.txt" (

Can we decide on dropping support for rbuild stuff in RosBE 2.0?
Reasons:

- RosBE 2.0 will certainly come with an updated set of build tools.
   (GCC 4.6 with mingw-w64 target is planned, maybe even a multilib
   version)
   The target change already makes older builds uncompilable with RosBE
   2.0. Even if this would be fixed, nobody would guarantee you that a
   revision built with RosBE 2.0 behaves the same as one compiled with
   1.5.x.
- Several versions of RosBE can be installed parallely, especially if
   you're also moving to a Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0, which doesn't
   care about Uninstall entries of NSIS. So everybody has the option
   to build older rbuild-powered revisions at any time.
- It could make all scripts cleaner again :-)

Regards,

Colin

[Olaf Siejka]

A new ROSBE should indeed be CMake-only.

2011/6/2 Colin Finck [e-mail]
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > if not exist "CMakeLists.txt" (
>
> Can we decide on dropping support for rbuild stuff in RosBE 2.0?
> Reasons:
> RosBE 2.0 will certainly come with an updated set of build tools.
>
> (GCC 4.6 with mingw-w64 target is planned, maybe even a multilib
>  version)
>  The target change already makes older builds uncompilable with RosBE
>  2.0. Even if this would be fixed, nobody would guarantee you that a
>  revision built with RosBE 2.0 behaves the same as one compiled with
>  1.5.x.
> Several versions of RosBE can be installed parallely, especially if
>
> you're also moving to a Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0, which doesn't
>  care about Uninstall entries of NSIS. So everybody has the option
>  to build older rbuild-powered revisions at any time.
> It could make all scripts cleaner again :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Colin
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Adam]

I do not like the idea of moving to Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0 - it  
can be quite tedious to clean up if the install is half done. IMO the  
original installer (NSIS) is much more cleaner than Windows Installer too.

If it ain't broke don't fix it I say.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:52:17 +1000, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > if not exist "CMakeLists.txt" (
>
> Can we decide on dropping support for rbuild stuff in RosBE 2.0?
> Reasons:
> RosBE 2.0 will certainly come with an updated set of build tools.
>  (GCC 4.6 with mingw-w64 target is planned, maybe even a multilib
>  version)
>  The target change already makes older builds uncompilable with RosBE
>  2.0. Even if this would be fixed, nobody would guarantee you that a
>  revision built with RosBE 2.0 behaves the same as one compiled with
>  1.5.x.
> Several versions of RosBE can be installed parallely, especially if
>  you're also moving to a Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0, which doesn't
>  care about Uninstall entries of NSIS. So everybody has the option
>  to build older rbuild-powered revisions at any time.
> It could make all scripts cleaner again :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Colin
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Ged Murphy]

Are you serious? Have you ever used WiX in a serious capacity?
It's far superior to NSIS in pretty much every way.

On 2 June 2011 22:18, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> I do not like the idea of moving to Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0 - it can
> be quite tedious to clean up if the install is half done. IMO the original
> installer (NSIS) is much more cleaner than Windows Installer too.
>
> If it ain't broke don't fix it I say.
>
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:52:17 +1000, Colin Finck [e-mail] wrote:
> > [e-mail] wrote:
> >  > if not exist "CMakeLists.txt" (
> >
> > Can we decide on dropping support for rbuild stuff in RosBE 2.0?
> > Reasons:
> > RosBE 2.0 will certainly come with an updated set of build tools.
> >
> > (GCC 4.6 with mingw-w64 target is planned, maybe even a multilib
> >   version)
> >   The target change already makes older builds uncompilable with RosBE
> >   2.0. Even if this would be fixed, nobody would guarantee you that a
> >   revision built with RosBE 2.0 behaves the same as one compiled with
> >   1.5.x.
> > Several versions of RosBE can be installed parallely, especially if
> >
> > you're also moving to a Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0, which doesn't
> >   care about Uninstall entries of NSIS. So everybody has the option
> >   to build older rbuild-powered revisions at any time.
> > It could make all scripts cleaner again :-)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Colin
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Adam]

So having a service running all the time just to install programs, and  
having to not be able to uninstall a program cleanly if the MSI file has  
been moved/deleted (or if the MSI file that was copied into some obscure  
place in the %SYSTEMROOT% path) or due to some other sort of failure,  
provides an error, is clean is it? Not to mention it will be impossible to  
uninstall in Safe Mode (should it be necessary) since MSIEXEC refuses to  
run under Safe Mode these days.

Never tried WiX before, but the problem wouldn't be WiX - it would be  
MSIEXEC and the way it works.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:35:56 +1000, Ged Murphy [e-mail] wrote:
> Are you serious? Have you ever used WiX in a serious capacity?
> It's far superior to NSIS in pretty much every way.
>
> On 2 June 2011 22:18, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> > I do not like the idea of moving to Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0 -  
> > it can
> > be quite tedious to clean up if the install is half done. IMO the  
> > original
> > installer (NSIS) is much more cleaner than Windows Installer too.
> >
> > If it ain't broke don't fix it I say.
> >
> > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:52:17 +1000, Colin Finck [e-mail]  
> > wrote:
> > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > if not exist "CMakeLists.txt" (
> > >
> > > Can we decide on dropping support for rbuild stuff in RosBE 2.0?
> > > Reasons:
> > > RosBE 2.0 will certainly come with an updated set of build tools.
> > > (GCC 4.6 with mingw-w64 target is planned, maybe even a multilib
> > > version)
> > > The target change already makes older builds uncompilable with RosBE
> > > 2.0. Even if this would be fixed, nobody would guarantee you that a
> > > revision built with RosBE 2.0 behaves the same as one compiled with
> > > 1.5.x.
> > > Several versions of RosBE can be installed parallely, especially if
> > > you're also moving to a Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0, which
> > >
> > > doesn't
> > >   care about Uninstall entries of NSIS. So everybody has the option
> > >   to build older rbuild-powered revisions at any time.
> > > It could make all scripts cleaner again :-)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Colin
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Zachary Gorden]

The amount of functionality that MSIs offer comes with a price.  Some of us
believe it is worth it.  Some don't.  We, meaning Daniel and myself, want a
MSI installer.  If someone else wants to maintain the NSIS installer, we
will not stop them.  We just won't offer any help doing so since we (Daneil
and myself) want a MSI installer.

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> So having a service running all the time just to install programs, and
> having to not be able to uninstall a program cleanly if the MSI file has
> been moved/deleted (or if the MSI file that was copied into some obscure
> place in the %SYSTEMROOT% path) or due to some other sort of failure,
> provides an error, is clean is it? Not to mention it will be impossible to
> uninstall in Safe Mode (should it be necessary) since MSIEXEC refuses to run
> under Safe Mode these days.
>
> Never tried WiX before, but the problem wouldn't be WiX - it would be
> MSIEXEC and the way it works.
>
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:35:56 +1000, Ged Murphy [e-mail]
> wrote:
>
> Are you serious? Have you ever used WiX in a serious capacity?
> > It's far superior to NSIS in pretty much every way.
> >
> > On 2 June 2011 22:18, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> > > I do not like the idea of moving to Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0 - it
> > > can
> > > be quite tedious to clean up if the install is half done. IMO the
> > > original
> > > installer (NSIS) is much more cleaner than Windows Installer too.
> > >
> > > If it ain't broke don't fix it I say.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:52:17 +1000, Colin Finck [e-mail]
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > if not exist "CMakeLists.txt" (
> > > >
> > > > Can we decide on dropping support for rbuild stuff in RosBE 2.0?
> > > > Reasons:
> > > > RosBE 2.0 will certainly come with an updated set of build tools.
> > > >
> > > > (GCC 4.6 with mingw-w64 target is planned, maybe even a multilib
> > > >  version)
> > > >  The target change already makes older builds uncompilable with RosBE
> > > >  2.0. Even if this would be fixed, nobody would guarantee you that a
> > > >  revision built with RosBE 2.0 behaves the same as one compiled with
> > > >  1.5.x.
> > > > Several versions of RosBE can be installed parallely, especially if
> > > >
> > > > you're also moving to a Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0, which doesn't
> > > >  care about Uninstall entries of NSIS. So everybody has the option
> > > >  to build older rbuild-powered revisions at any time.
> > > > It could make all scripts cleaner again :-)
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Colin
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > --
> > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Adam]

Fair enough, but does RosBE actually do anything (installer-wise) other  
than install its files in a directory and set the occasional environment  
variable (PATH) - if this is the case, surely any installer (be it NSIS,  
Inno Setup, MSI, etc) can do this.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:03:07 +1000, Zachary Gorden  
[e-mail] wrote:
> The amount of functionality that MSIs offer comes with a price.  Some of  
> us
> believe it is worth it.  Some don't.  We, meaning Daniel and myself,  
> want a
> MSI installer.  If someone else wants to maintain the NSIS installer, we
> will not stop them.  We just won't offer any help doing so since we  
> (Daneil
> and myself) want a MSI installer.
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> > So having a service running all the time just to install programs, and
> > having to not be able to uninstall a program cleanly if the MSI file has
> > been moved/deleted (or if the MSI file that was copied into some obscure
> > place in the %SYSTEMROOT% path) or due to some other sort of failure,
> > provides an error, is clean is it? Not to mention it will be impossible  
> > to
> > uninstall in Safe Mode (should it be necessary) since MSIEXEC refuses  
> > to run
> > under Safe Mode these days.
> >
> > Never tried WiX before, but the problem wouldn't be WiX - it would be
> > MSIEXEC and the way it works.
> >
> > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:35:56 +1000, Ged Murphy [e-mail]
> > wrote:
> >
> > Are you serious? Have you ever used WiX in a serious capacity?
> > > It's far superior to NSIS in pretty much every way.
> > >
> > > On 2 June 2011 22:18, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > I do not like the idea of moving to Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0 -  
> > > > it
> > > > can
> > > > be quite tedious to clean up if the install is half done. IMO the
> > > > original
> > > > installer (NSIS) is much more cleaner than Windows Installer too.
> > > >
> > > > If it ain't broke don't fix it I say.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:52:17 +1000, Colin Finck [e-mail]
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > > if not exist "CMakeLists.txt" (
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we decide on dropping support for rbuild stuff in RosBE 2.0?
> > > > > Reasons:
> > > > > RosBE 2.0 will certainly come with an updated set of build tools.
> > > > >
> > > > > (GCC 4.6 with mingw-w64 target is planned, maybe even a multilib
> > > > >  version)
> > > > >  The target change already makes older builds uncompilable with RosBE
> > > > >  2.0. Even if this would be fixed, nobody would guarantee you that a
> > > > >  revision built with RosBE 2.0 behaves the same as one compiled with
> > > > >  1.5.x.
> > > > > Several versions of RosBE can be installed parallely, especially if
> > > > >
> > > > > you're also moving to a Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0, which  
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > >  care about Uninstall entries of NSIS. So everybody has the option
> > > > >  to build older rbuild-powered revisions at any time.
> > > > > It could make all scripts cleaner again :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Colin
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Zachary Gorden]

I intend to package the BE so that you have one installer for the various
platform targets instead of the current three installers we have right now.
I am not familiar enough with NSIS to know why Daniel did not do this,
though from his complaining I got the impression he didn't try to get any
fancier with the NSIS installer because he didn't want to go through the
trouble of futzing with it.  One could argue that since we need little
beyond installing files and making sure that an uninstallation actually
cleans up the files and shortcuts, the best option is MSI since an MSI
installer actually registers with the OS the things that need to be cleaned
up when an application is to be uninstalled.

Also a correction to your comment about the MSI service.  As far as I'm
aware that is a start-on-demand service which only starts up if you run a
MSI installer.  It'll hang around for a bit afterward, but then turns itself
off if you don't run another installer for a while.

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> Fair enough, but does RosBE actually do anything (installer-wise) other
> than install its files in a directory and set the occasional environment
> variable (PATH) - if this is the case, surely any installer (be it NSIS,
> Inno Setup, MSI, etc) can do this.
>
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:03:07 +1000, Zachary Gorden <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> The amount of functionality that MSIs offer comes with a price.  Some of
> > us
> > believe it is worth it.  Some don't.  We, meaning Daniel and myself, want
> > a
> > MSI installer.  If someone else wants to maintain the NSIS installer, we
> > will not stop them.  We just won't offer any help doing so since we
> > (Daneil
> > and myself) want a MSI installer.
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > So having a service running all the time just to install programs, and
> > > having to not be able to uninstall a program cleanly if the MSI file has
> > > been moved/deleted (or if the MSI file that was copied into some obscure
> > > place in the %SYSTEMROOT% path) or due to some other sort of failure,
> > > provides an error, is clean is it? Not to mention it will be impossible
> > > to
> > > uninstall in Safe Mode (should it be necessary) since MSIEXEC refuses to
> > > run
> > > under Safe Mode these days.
> > >
> > > Never tried WiX before, but the problem wouldn't be WiX - it would be
> > > MSIEXEC and the way it works.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:35:56 +1000, Ged Murphy [e-mail]
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Are you serious? Have you ever used WiX in a serious capacity?
> > > > It's far superior to NSIS in pretty much every way.
> > > >
> > > > On 2 June 2011 22:18, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I do not like the idea of moving to Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0 -
> > > > > it
> > > > > can
> > > > > be quite tedious to clean up if the install is half done. IMO the
> > > > > original
> > > > > installer (NSIS) is much more cleaner than Windows Installer too.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it ain't broke don't fix it I say.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:52:17 +1000, Colin Finck [e-mail]
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > > > if not exist "CMakeLists.txt" (
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we decide on dropping support for rbuild stuff in RosBE 2.0?
> > > > > > Reasons:
> > > > > > RosBE 2.0 will certainly come with an updated set of build tools.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (GCC 4.6 with mingw-w64 target is planned, maybe even a multilib
> > > > > >  version)
> > > > > >  The target change already makes older builds uncompilable with RosBE
> > > > > >  2.0. Even if this would be fixed, nobody would guarantee you that a
> > > > > >  revision built with RosBE 2.0 behaves the same as one compiled with
> > > > > >  1.5.x.
> > > > > > Several versions of RosBE can be installed parallely, especially if
> > > > > >
> > > > > > you're also moving to a Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0, which
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > >  care about Uninstall entries of NSIS. So everybody has the option
> > > > > >  to build older rbuild-powered revisions at any time.
> > > > > > It could make all scripts cleaner again :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Colin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > --
> > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

"As far as I'm aware that is a start-on-demand service which only starts up
if you run a MSI installer"

i confirm this

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 2:24 AM, Zachary Gorden [e-mail]:
> I intend to package the BE so that you have one installer for the various
> platform targets instead of the current three installers we have right now.
> I am not familiar enough with NSIS to know why Daniel did not do this,
> though from his complaining I got the impression he didn't try to get any
> fancier with the NSIS installer because he didn't want to go through the
> trouble of futzing with it.  One could argue that since we need little
> beyond installing files and making sure that an uninstallation actually
> cleans up the files and shortcuts, the best option is MSI since an MSI
> installer actually registers with the OS the things that need to be cleaned
> up when an application is to be uninstalled.
>
> Also a correction to your comment about the MSI service.  As far as I'm
> aware that is a start-on-demand service which only starts up if you run a
> MSI installer.  It'll hang around for a bit afterward, but then turns itself
> off if you don't run another installer for a while.
>
> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> > Fair enough, but does RosBE actually do anything (installer-wise) other
> > than install its files in a directory and set the occasional environment
> > variable (PATH) - if this is the case, surely any installer (be it NSIS,
> > Inno Setup, MSI, etc) can do this.
> >
> > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:03:07 +1000, Zachary Gorden <
> > [e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > The amount of functionality that MSIs offer comes with a price.  Some of
> > > us
> > > believe it is worth it.  Some don't.  We, meaning Daniel and myself, want
> > > a
> > > MSI installer.  If someone else wants to maintain the NSIS installer, we
> > > will not stop them.  We just won't offer any help doing so since we
> > > (Daneil
> > > and myself) want a MSI installer.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> > >
> > > So having a service running all the time just to install programs, and
> > > > having to not be able to uninstall a program cleanly if the MSI file has
> > > > been moved/deleted (or if the MSI file that was copied into some obscure
> > > > place in the %SYSTEMROOT% path) or due to some other sort of failure,
> > > > provides an error, is clean is it? Not to mention it will be impossible
> > > > to
> > > > uninstall in Safe Mode (should it be necessary) since MSIEXEC refuses to
> > > > run
> > > > under Safe Mode these days.
> > > >
> > > > Never tried WiX before, but the problem wouldn't be WiX - it would be
> > > > MSIEXEC and the way it works.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:35:56 +1000, Ged Murphy [e-mail]
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Are you serious? Have you ever used WiX in a serious capacity?
> > > > > It's far superior to NSIS in pretty much every way.
> > > > >
> > > > > On 2 June 2011 22:18, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not like the idea of moving to Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0 -
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > be quite tedious to clean up if the install is half done. IMO the
> > > > > > original
> > > > > > installer (NSIS) is much more cleaner than Windows Installer too.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If it ain't broke don't fix it I say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:52:17 +1000, Colin Finck [e-mail]
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >  > if not exist "CMakeLists.txt" (
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we decide on dropping support for rbuild stuff in RosBE 2.0?
> > > > > > > Reasons:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > - RosBE 2.0 will certainly come with an updated set of build tools.
> > > > > > >  (GCC 4.6 with mingw-w64 target is planned, maybe even a multilib
> > > > > > >  version)
> > > > > > >  The target change already makes older builds uncompilable with RosBE
> > > > > > >  2.0. Even if this would be fixed, nobody would guarantee you that a
> > > > > > >  revision built with RosBE 2.0 behaves the same as one compiled with
> > > > > > >  1.5.x.
> > > > > > > - Several versions of RosBE can be installed parallely, especially if
> > > > > > >  you're also moving to a Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0, which
> > > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > > >  care about Uninstall entries of NSIS. So everybody has the option
> > > > > > >  to build older rbuild-powered revisions at any time.
> > > > > > > - It could make all scripts cleaner again :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Colin
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Timo Kreuzer]

Am 03.06.2011 02:24, schrieb Zachary Gorden:
> I intend to package the BE so that you have one installer for the 
> various platform targets instead of the current three installers we 
> have right now.

You are aware that 14 MB + 16 MB + 11 MB = 41 MB ?
I really see no point in bundling them all together.

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

lol, ROS is ~41MB too

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] wrote:
> Am 03.06.2011 02:24, schrieb Zachary Gorden:
>
> I intend to package the BE so that you have one installer for the various
> > platform targets instead of the current three installers we have right now.
>
> You are aware that 14 MB + 16 MB + 11 MB = 41 MB ?
> I really see no point in bundling them all together.
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Adam]

I am sure the blokes at Microsoft Corporation and Adobe think in similar  
ways. :)

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:33:08 +1000, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo  
[e-mail] wrote:
> lol, ROS is ~41MB too
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] wrote:
> > Am 03.06.2011 02:24, schrieb Zachary Gorden:
> >
> > I intend to package the BE so that you have one installer for the  
> > various
> > > platform targets instead of the current three installers we have right  
> > > now.
> >
> > You are aware that 14 MB + 16 MB + 11 MB = 41 MB ?
> > I really see no point in bundling them all together.
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Ged Murphy]

I can't think of any advantages of packaging them together.
It actually sounds more confusing that helpful.

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
Behalf Of Timo Kreuzer
Sent: 03 June 2011 08:22
To: ReactOS Development List
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...

Am 03.06.2011 02:24, schrieb Zachary Gorden:
> I intend to package the BE so that you have one installer for the 
> various platform targets instead of the current three installers we 
> have right now.

You are aware that 14 MB + 16 MB + 11 MB = 41 MB ?
I really see no point in bundling them all together.

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Adam]

Of course, one could always provide functionality (within the installer)  
to download the optional components. That way the user doesn't have to  
download a 41MB file if he/she doesn't want to. No need to pack them up  
into one installer IMO

IIRC a lot of installers support this, and I've seen this kind of thing in  
Windows installers as well as NSIS and some other installers. Something  
like the way the MinGW GUI installer works.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:40:58 +1000, Ged Murphy [e-mail] wrote:
> I can't think of any advantages of packaging them together.
> It actually sounds more confusing that helpful.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Timo Kreuzer
> Sent: 03 June 2011 08:22
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
>
> Am 03.06.2011 02:24, schrieb Zachary Gorden:
> > I intend to package the BE so that you have one installer for the
> > various platform targets instead of the current three installers we
> > have right now.
>
> You are aware that 14 MB + 16 MB + 11 MB = 41 MB ?
> I really see no point in bundling them all together.
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Ged Murphy]

When I say wix, I mean windows installer. The two have become synonymous for me now.

Much of what you say isn't true.
The only issue I've ever come across with msi's is that failed installs can lead to the database becoming corrupt.
However this is very rare and can be repaired in various ways.

I get the feeling people use NSIS because it's open source and that must mean it's better/cooler.
I prefer to look at the merits of both open and closed and choose the best.
In 99% of cases, closed source comes out on top.

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: 02 June 2011 22:55
To: ReactOS Development List; Ged Murphy
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...

So having a service running all the time just to install programs, and  
having to not be able to uninstall a program cleanly if the MSI file has  
been moved/deleted (or if the MSI file that was copied into some obscure  
place in the %SYSTEMROOT% path) or due to some other sort of failure,  
provides an error, is clean is it? Not to mention it will be impossible to  
uninstall in Safe Mode (should it be necessary) since MSIEXEC refuses to  
run under Safe Mode these days.

Never tried WiX before, but the problem wouldn't be WiX - it would be  
MSIEXEC and the way it works.

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:35:56 +1000, Ged Murphy [e-mail] wrote:
> Are you serious? Have you ever used WiX in a serious capacity?
> It's far superior to NSIS in pretty much every way.
>
> On 2 June 2011 22:18, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> > I do not like the idea of moving to Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0 -  
> > it can
> > be quite tedious to clean up if the install is half done. IMO the  
> > original
> > installer (NSIS) is much more cleaner than Windows Installer too.
> >
> > If it ain't broke don't fix it I say.
> >
> > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:52:17 +1000, Colin Finck [e-mail]  
> > wrote:
> > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > if not exist "CMakeLists.txt" (
> > >
> > > Can we decide on dropping support for rbuild stuff in RosBE 2.0?
> > > Reasons:
> > > RosBE 2.0 will certainly come with an updated set of build tools.
> > > (GCC 4.6 with mingw-w64 target is planned, maybe even a multilib
> > > version)
> > > The target change already makes older builds uncompilable with RosBE
> > > 2.0. Even if this would be fixed, nobody would guarantee you that a
> > > revision built with RosBE 2.0 behaves the same as one compiled with
> > > 1.5.x.
> > > Several versions of RosBE can be installed parallely, especially if
> > > you're also moving to a Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0, which
> > >
> > > doesn't
> > >   care about Uninstall entries of NSIS. So everybody has the option
> > >   to build older rbuild-powered revisions at any time.
> > > It could make all scripts cleaner again :-)
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Colin
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Adam]

On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:58:42 +1000, Ged Murphy [e-mail] wrote:
> When I say wix, I mean windows installer. The two have become synonymous  
> for me now.
>
> Much of what you say isn't true.
> The only issue I've ever come across with msi's is that failed installs  
> can lead to the database becoming corrupt.
> However this is very rare and can be repaired in various ways.

Now the problem here is: will the end users be able to apply this easily  
without risk of damaging the other installs? I'm not suggesting attempting  
to fix such a problem will damage the other installs or the system, but  
are the repair methods clean?
> I get the feeling people use NSIS because it's open source and that must  
> mean it's better/cooler.
> I prefer to look at the merits of both open and closed and choose the  
> best.
> In 99% of cases, closed source comes out on top.

I must admit I am not a big fan of their clumsy syntax myself. Inno Setup  
seems better to me. As for open sourcedness - IMO its only really useful  
if you have the tools to edit the source. Bottom line is that I agree with  
this.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: 02 June 2011 22:55
> To: ReactOS Development List; Ged Murphy
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
>
> So having a service running all the time just to install programs, and
> having to not be able to uninstall a program cleanly if the MSI file has
> been moved/deleted (or if the MSI file that was copied into some obscure
> place in the %SYSTEMROOT% path) or due to some other sort of failure,
> provides an error, is clean is it? Not to mention it will be impossible  
> to
> uninstall in Safe Mode (should it be necessary) since MSIEXEC refuses to
> run under Safe Mode these days.
>
> Never tried WiX before, but the problem wouldn't be WiX - it would be
> MSIEXEC and the way it works.
>
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:35:56 +1000, Ged Murphy [e-mail]  
> wrote:
> > Are you serious? Have you ever used WiX in a serious capacity?
> > It's far superior to NSIS in pretty much every way.
> >
> > On 2 June 2011 22:18, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> > > I do not like the idea of moving to Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0 -
> > > it can
> > > be quite tedious to clean up if the install is half done. IMO the
> > > original
> > > installer (NSIS) is much more cleaner than Windows Installer too.
> > >
> > > If it ain't broke don't fix it I say.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:52:17 +1000, Colin Finck [e-mail]
> > > wrote:
> > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > if not exist "CMakeLists.txt" (
> > > >
> > > > Can we decide on dropping support for rbuild stuff in RosBE 2.0?
> > > > Reasons:
> > > > RosBE 2.0 will certainly come with an updated set of build tools.
> > > > (GCC 4.6 with mingw-w64 target is planned, maybe even a multilib
> > > > version)
> > > > The target change already makes older builds uncompilable with RosBE
> > > > 2.0. Even if this would be fixed, nobody would guarantee you that a
> > > > revision built with RosBE 2.0 behaves the same as one compiled with
> > > > 1.5.x.
> > > > Several versions of RosBE can be installed parallely, especially if
> > > > you're also moving to a Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0, which
> > > >
> > > > doesn't
> > > >   care about Uninstall entries of NSIS. So everybody has the option
> > > >   to build older rbuild-powered revisions at any time.
> > > > It could make all scripts cleaner again :-)
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > >
> > > > Colin
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > --
> > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Zachary Gorden]

The user is able to select which ones they want to install.  If they only
want the x86 BE, they don't have to install the x64 or ARM BE.

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:58:42 +1000, Ged Murphy [e-mail]
> wrote:
>
> When I say wix, I mean windows installer. The two have become synonymous
> > for me now.
> >
> > Much of what you say isn't true.
> > The only issue I've ever come across with msi's is that failed installs
> > can lead to the database becoming corrupt.
> > However this is very rare and can be repaired in various ways.
>
> Now the problem here is: will the end users be able to apply this easily
> without risk of damaging the other installs? I'm not suggesting attempting
> to fix such a problem will damage the other installs or the system, but are
> the repair methods clean?
> > I get the feeling people use NSIS because it's open source and that must
> > mean it's better/cooler.
> > I prefer to look at the merits of both open and closed and choose the
> > best.
> > In 99% of cases, closed source comes out on top.
>
> I must admit I am not a big fan of their clumsy syntax myself. Inno Setup
> seems better to me. As for open sourcedness - IMO its only really useful if
> you have the tools to edit the source. Bottom line is that I agree with
> this.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adam [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: 02 June 2011 22:55
> > To: ReactOS Development List; Ged Murphy
> > Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
> >
> > So having a service running all the time just to install programs, and
> > having to not be able to uninstall a program cleanly if the MSI file has
> > been moved/deleted (or if the MSI file that was copied into some obscure
> > place in the %SYSTEMROOT% path) or due to some other sort of failure,
> > provides an error, is clean is it? Not to mention it will be impossible to
> > uninstall in Safe Mode (should it be necessary) since MSIEXEC refuses to
> > run under Safe Mode these days.
> >
> > Never tried WiX before, but the problem wouldn't be WiX - it would be
> > MSIEXEC and the way it works.
> >
> > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:35:56 +1000, Ged Murphy [e-mail]
> > wrote:
> >
> > Are you serious? Have you ever used WiX in a serious capacity?
> > > It's far superior to NSIS in pretty much every way.
> > >
> > > On 2 June 2011 22:18, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > I do not like the idea of moving to Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0 -
> > > > it can
> > > > be quite tedious to clean up if the install is half done. IMO the
> > > > original
> > > > installer (NSIS) is much more cleaner than Windows Installer too.
> > > >
> > > > If it ain't broke don't fix it I say.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:52:17 +1000, Colin Finck [e-mail]
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > > if not exist "CMakeLists.txt" (
> > > > >
> > > > > Can we decide on dropping support for rbuild stuff in RosBE 2.0?
> > > > > Reasons:
> > > > > RosBE 2.0 will certainly come with an updated set of build tools.
> > > > >
> > > > > (GCC 4.6 with mingw-w64 target is planned, maybe even a multilib
> > > > >  version)
> > > > >  The target change already makes older builds uncompilable with RosBE
> > > > >  2.0. Even if this would be fixed, nobody would guarantee you that a
> > > > >  revision built with RosBE 2.0 behaves the same as one compiled with
> > > > >  1.5.x.
> > > > > Several versions of RosBE can be installed parallely, especially if
> > > > >
> > > > > you're also moving to a Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0, which
> > > > > doesn't
> > > > >  care about Uninstall entries of NSIS. So everybody has the option
> > > > >  to build older rbuild-powered revisions at any time.
> > > > > It could make all scripts cleaner again :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Colin
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Timo Kreuzer]

Am 03.06.2011 16:29, schrieb Zachary Gorden:
> The user is able to select which ones they want to install.  If they 
> only want the x86 BE, they don't have to install the x64 or ARM BE.

I don't worry about installation size, but download size. and 99% of all 
users will never use any of these.

My vote on this:
CMake: bundle it, optional on installation
x64/arm: create individual installers

[Colin Finck]

Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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

[Zachary Gorden]

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 [e-mail] wrote:
> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Alex Ionescu]

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 [e-mail] wrote:
> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Kamil Hornicek]

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 [e-mail] wrote:

Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Alex Ionescu]

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 [e-mail] wrote:
>
> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

just 1 more thing...

if you choose to download modules optionally, please dont forget about users
behind a proxy which requires authentication.... (im one of them at work :)
)

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] wrote:
> 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 [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Jan Blomqvist Kinander]

I suggest doing like many other, have one standard 400k installer but one fully packad exe as well, for the ones having troubble.

/Jaix Bly

"ReactOS Development List" [e-mail] wrote on Fri, June 3rd, 2011, 7:44 PM:
> just 1 more thing...
>
> if you choose to download modules optionally, please dont forget about users
> behind a proxy which requires authentication.... (im one of them at work :)
> )
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] wrote:
> > 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 [e-mail] wrote:
> > >
> > > Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Kamil Hornicek]

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" [e-mail]
To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
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 [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> > Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Alex Ionescu]

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" [e-mail]
> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> 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 [e-mail] wrote:
> > >
> > > Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

thank you for your explanation, Alex, well, im both a Linux and Windows
user, but i didnt know this.

Its just i have got several apps that cannot work because of the issue i
said above....

But, anywan, im ok now, and thank you so much

On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 8:20 PM, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] wrote:
> 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" [e-mail]
> > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > 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 [e-mail]
>
> wrote:
> > > > Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Kamil Hornicek]

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" [e-mail]
To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
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" [e-mail]
> > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > 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 [e-mail] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Alex Ionescu]

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" [e-mail]
> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> 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" [e-mail]
> > > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > 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 [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Adam]

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 [e-mail]  
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" [e-mail]
> > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > 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"  
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > 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 [e-mail]  
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Zachary Gorden]

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 [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
> 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" [e-mail]
> > > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > 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" <[e-mail]
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > 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 [e-mail]
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Adam]

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  
[e-mail] 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 [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
> > 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"  
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > 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"  
> > > > > > <[e-mail]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > 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 [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Alex Ionescu]

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 [e-mail] 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 [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
> > > 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" [e-mail]
> > > > > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > 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" <[e-mail]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > > 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 [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > --
> > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> -- 
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Adam]

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 [e-mail]  
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  
> > [e-mail] 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 [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
> > > > 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"  
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > 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"  
> > > > > > >> <[e-mail]
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> 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 [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > > >>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo]

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

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Adam [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
> 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 <
> > > [e-mail]> 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 [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
> > > > > 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" <
> > > > > > > [e-mail]>
> > > > > > > To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > > 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" <
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> >
> > > > > > >>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> 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 [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > --
> > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Adam]

I am aware of that. I was talking about Microsoft Windows and not ReactOS  
- and was responding to someone who suggested "Update to Windows Vista+,  
which has KTM."

Please read the messages that are being replied to as well, other than  
just the replies.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 04:53:43 +1000, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo  
[e-mail] wrote:
> Adam... ReactOS will not be Win Vista/7 ;)
>
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Adam [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
> > 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 <
> > > > [e-mail]> 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 [e-mail] 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  
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > 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" <
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]>
> > > > > > >> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> 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" <
> > > > > > >>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> >
> > > > > > >>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> 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  
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Alex Ionescu]

Windows 7 runs on pre-2007 computers just fine, so that's irrelevant.

Windows 7 is available as a trial, and also for free for students, and also for only 99$ as an upgrade to XP, which came out a decade ago. So there's people who don't have 99$/10 years? How did they get XP then?

Windows 7 does not take up 15GB of disk space. A fresh install of Ultimate uses 8.64GB.

If 8.64GB is too much, you can use Windows 7 for Thin PCs, which is in CTP right now. It uses ~2.7GB of space for a fresh install, only slightly higher than XP's 1.5.

(Also, who the cares about 2.5 or 8GB when you can get a 1TB disk for 100$ these days?)

--
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

On 2011-06-04, at 3:03 PM, Adam wrote:
> I am aware of that. I was talking about Microsoft Windows and not ReactOS - and was responding to someone who suggested "Update to Windows Vista+, which has KTM."
>
> Please read the messages that are being replied to as well, other than just the replies.
>
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 04:53:43 +1000, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo [e-mail] wrote:
> > Adam... ReactOS will not be Win Vista/7 ;)
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Adam [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
> > > 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 <
> > > > > [e-mail]> 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 [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
> > > > > > > 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" <
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]>
> > > > > > >>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> 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" <
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> 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 [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>> 
> > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>> 
> > > > > > >>>> 
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > >> 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > --
> > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> -- 
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Adam]

Many got it pre-installed with their machines. Sure Windows 7 may run on  
pre-2007 machines if you bought it for over six thousand bucks, but that  
still doesn't resolve another issue (which i forgot to mention) -  
compatibility.

Gotta love that philosophy "who cares about 2.5GB or 8GB" - the operating  
system starts doing it, and then all the programs follow. Remember MSN  
Messenger 1.0? That was only a few hundred kilobytes to few megabytes to  
install. Now its over 180MB to install.

Which application do you want to bloat today?

<ps... i think the thread has been derailed>

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 05:34:20 +1000, Alex Ionescu [e-mail]  
wrote:
> Windows 7 runs on pre-2007 computers just fine, so that's irrelevant.
>
> Windows 7 is available as a trial, and also for free for students, and  
> also for only 99$ as an upgrade to XP, which came out a decade ago. So  
> there's people who don't have 99$/10 years? How did they get XP then?
>
> Windows 7 does not take up 15GB of disk space. A fresh install of  
> Ultimate uses 8.64GB.
>
> If 8.64GB is too much, you can use Windows 7 for Thin PCs, which is in  
> CTP right now. It uses ~2.7GB of space for a fresh install, only  
> slightly higher than XP's 1.5.
>
> (Also, who the cares about 2.5 or 8GB when you can get a 1TB disk for  
> 100$ these days?)
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu
>
> On 2011-06-04, at 3:03 PM, Adam wrote:
> > I am aware of that. I was talking about Microsoft Windows and not  
> > ReactOS - and was responding to someone who suggested "Update to  
> > Windows Vista+, which has KTM."
> >
> > Please read the messages that are being replied to as well, other than  
> > just the replies.
> >
> > On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 04:53:43 +1000, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo  
> > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > Adam... ReactOS will not be Win Vista/7 ;)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Adam [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
> > > > 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 <
> > > > > > [e-mail]> 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 [e-mail] 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  
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> 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" <
> > > > > > >>>> [e-mail]>
> > > > > > >>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> 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" <
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> 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  
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> Using Opera's revolutionary email client:  
> > > > > > >> http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Alex Ionescu]

On 2011-06-04, at 3:43 PM, Adam wrote:
> Many got it pre-installed with their machines. Sure Windows 7 may run on pre-2007 machines if you bought it for over six thousand bucks, but that still doesn't resolve another issue (which i forgot to mention) - compatibility.

Windows 7 has about the same requirements as Windows XP if you do feature parity on both installs. Starting to refer to "over six thousand bucks" is absurd.

A P4 could run Win 7 fine, and those have been around since 2000....
> Gotta love that philosophy "who cares about 2.5GB or 8GB" - the operating system starts doing it, and then all the programs follow. Remember MSN Messenger 1.0? That was only a few hundred kilobytes to few megabytes to install. Now its over 180MB to install.

That includes the size of the .NET framework and many other components -- the actual install is much smaller. Much of that is bitmap, picture data as well. Also, MSN Messenger 1.0 did not do things like webcam support, file transfers, etc... so I don't understand the point of the comparison?
> Which application do you want to bloat today?
>
> <ps... i think the thread has been derailed>

Yes, it has, I demonstrated how "upgrade to Win7" is not such a strange thing to ask, and instead of accepting defeat to my arguments, you are talking about 6000$ computers and MSN Messenger 1.0.

So I'll quit now.

--
Best regards,
Alex Ionescu
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 05:34:20 +1000, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] wrote:
> > Windows 7 runs on pre-2007 computers just fine, so that's irrelevant.
> >
> > Windows 7 is available as a trial, and also for free for students, and also for only 99$ as an upgrade to XP, which came out a decade ago. So there's people who don't have 99$/10 years? How did they get XP then?
> >
> > Windows 7 does not take up 15GB of disk space. A fresh install of Ultimate uses 8.64GB.
> >
> > If 8.64GB is too much, you can use Windows 7 for Thin PCs, which is in CTP right now. It uses ~2.7GB of space for a fresh install, only slightly higher than XP's 1.5.
> >
> > (Also, who the cares about 2.5 or 8GB when you can get a 1TB disk for 100$ these days?)
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Alex Ionescu
> >
> > On 2011-06-04, at 3:03 PM, Adam wrote:
> > > I am aware of that. I was talking about Microsoft Windows and not ReactOS - and was responding to someone who suggested "Update to Windows Vista+, which has KTM."
> > >
> > > Please read the messages that are being replied to as well, other than just the replies.
> > >
> > > On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 04:53:43 +1000, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > Adam... ReactOS will not be Win Vista/7 ;)
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Adam [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
> > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > > [e-mail]> 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 [e-mail] 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 [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> 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" <
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]>
> > > > > > >>>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> 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" <
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 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 [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>>> 
> > > > > > >>>> 
> > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>> 
> > > > > > >>>> 
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > >>> 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > --
> > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> -- 
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Adam]

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 06:28:56 +1000, Alex Ionescu [e-mail]  
wrote:
> On 2011-06-04, at 3:43 PM, Adam wrote:
> > Many got it pre-installed with their machines. Sure Windows 7 may run  
> > on pre-2007 machines if you bought it for over six thousand bucks, but  
> > that still doesn't resolve another issue (which i forgot to mention) -  
> > compatibility.
>
> Windows 7 has about the same requirements as Windows XP if you do  
> feature parity on both installs. Starting to refer to "over six thousand  
> bucks" is absurd.

Had no idea. I thoght it needed at least 1GB RAM and 16GB HDD space  
etcetera? That is well beyond the requirements for Windows XP isn't it?
> A P4 could run Win 7 fine, and those have been around since 2000....
> > Gotta love that philosophy "who cares about 2.5GB or 8GB" - the  
> > operating system starts doing it, and then all the programs follow.  
> > Remember MSN Messenger 1.0? That was only a few hundred kilobytes to  
> > few megabytes to install. Now its over 180MB to install.
>
> That includes the size of the .NET framework and many other components  
> -- the actual install is much smaller. Much of that is bitmap, picture  
> data as well. Also, MSN Messenger 1.0 did not do things like webcam  
> support, file transfers, etc... so I don't understand the point of the  
> comparison?

MSN Messenger 1.0 did not include things like a ridiculous skin which  
cannot be changed, advertisements, etcetera either. The MSN installer does  
not include the .NET framework.

And is 180MB really needed for text chat AND webcam support? Windows  
Messenger 5.1 also had webcam support. NetMeeting had it too. They sure as  
hell weren't even 30MB large.

Here's another example: Adobe Reader - latest version has a 46MB  
installer! It does fundamentally the same stuff as its predecessors, in  
fact pretty much the same stuff as Adobe Reader 4.0 - yet the installer is  
ginormous! You can do similar stuff with Evince for example.

And a classic example: Microsoft Internet Explorer - is very large  
compared to many other browsers.

What I am trying to get at is that when developers get this attitude that  
"ah 1.5GB doesn't hurt since you can buy 1.5TB hard drives for ten bucks!"  
then the software bloat begins.
> > Which application do you want to bloat today?
> >
> > <ps... i think the thread has been derailed>
>
> Yes, it has, I demonstrated how "upgrade to Win7" is not such a strange  
> thing to ask, and instead of accepting defeat to my arguments, you are  
> talking about 6000$ computers and MSN Messenger 1.0.

Why should I accept defeat for an argument when I have not been defeated?  
How is it not a strange thing to ask? So basically you are suggesting that  
people should keep upgrading even if they do not want to? What about  
enterprise users? They will indeed run into issues when upgrading.

Given all these 'arguments' of yours then, there really is very little, if  
any, point of having ReactOS around in the first place, since according to  
you everybody is capable of shelling $$$ into Windows licenses  
unnecessarily.

Next when Windows 8 comes out will you be suggesting to drop Windows 7  
support and upgrade to Windows 8 because it supports XYZ feature?

The talk about MSN messenger 1.0 and $6000 computers - I was attempting to  
point out the attitude of a lot of developers today. "Oh lets make the  
software big, since it doesn't matter if the user has to download all  
100+MB of our installer even though our program doesn't do anything, and  
lets use all these cool frameworks and runtime libraries to make our apps  
sound cool even though they are not needed" and all that which is becoming  
more prevalent these days, compared to back then.

A great motto then for you may be "Which of the users' resources do you  
want to waste today?"
> So I'll quit now.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu
> > On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 05:34:20 +1000, Alex Ionescu [e-mail]  
> > wrote:
> > > Windows 7 runs on pre-2007 computers just fine, so that's irrelevant.
> > >
> > > Windows 7 is available as a trial, and also for free for students, and  
> > > also for only 99$ as an upgrade to XP, which came out a decade ago. So  
> > > there's people who don't have 99$/10 years? How did they get XP then?
> > >
> > > Windows 7 does not take up 15GB of disk space. A fresh install of  
> > > Ultimate uses 8.64GB.
> > >
> > > If 8.64GB is too much, you can use Windows 7 for Thin PCs, which is in  
> > > CTP right now. It uses ~2.7GB of space for a fresh install, only  
> > > slightly higher than XP's 1.5.
> > >
> > > (Also, who the cares about 2.5 or 8GB when you can get a 1TB disk for  
> > > 100$ these days?)
> > >
> > > --
> > > Best regards,
> > > Alex Ionescu
> > >
> > > On 2011-06-04, at 3:03 PM, Adam wrote:
> > > > I am aware of that. I was talking about Microsoft Windows and not  
> > > > ReactOS - and was responding to someone who suggested "Update to  
> > > > Windows Vista+, which has KTM."
> > > >
> > > > Please read the messages that are being replied to as well, other  
> > > > than just the replies.
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 04:53:43 +1000, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo  
> > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > Adam... ReactOS will not be Win Vista/7 ;)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Adam [e-mail] 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  
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]> 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 [e-mail]  
> > > > > > >>> 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  
> > > > > > >>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> 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" <
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]>
> > > > > > >>>>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> 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" <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 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  
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> --
> > > > > > >>>> Using Opera's revolutionary email client:  
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> --
> > > > > > >> Using Opera's revolutionary email client:  
> > > > > > >> http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[victor martinez]

This thread has been totally going OffTopic :)
But as I love this kind of discussion, I will give my opinion.
1)Apps, not just MS ones, aren't optimized anymore. I still remember the discussions, when coding, with pointer=pointer+1; and pointer++; or how functions were optimized to be able to run in a limited hardware. And sure, an old Internet Browser was "eating" about 10 MB while one nowadays needs about 200MB. 20 times more. Stats taken from latest IE with just one tab opened, same applies to FF and Chrome.
2)Windows 7 is able to run with less than 1GB. I was able to run it in 512MB, not as its antecessor Vista.But Vista was just an agreement with Hardware companies to force the movement to 3GB Ram and x64 in laptops, preparing the scene for 7 and 8.
3)MS needs a new push. 7 doesnt introduce any new *killer* features for Governments or *Commun* Enterprises. That is the main reason that nowadays XP is still present in 80% of their computers which are being used mainly for Writting/EXCELing purposes. The other 20% is coming from the new *enforced* Pcs/Laptops which directly comes with 7 installed. I just know 1 company which decided *freely* to move to 7, but it was a Videogames company. When you *force* a company to move from one product to another one(i.e: stopping Support ) it creates the current *not*lovely*image* MS has. The day MS is able to convince people to buy freely their new OS version, that day its *$* image will begin to change..

PS: Peace and Love.
> To: [e-mail]
> Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 12:35:20 +1000
> From: [e-mail]
> CC: ; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
>
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 06:28:56 +1000, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] 
> wrote:
> > On 2011-06-04, at 3:43 PM, Adam wrote:
> > > Many got it pre-installed with their machines. Sure Windows 7 may run 
> > > on pre-2007 machines if you bought it for over six thousand bucks, but 
> > > that still doesn't resolve another issue (which i forgot to mention) - 
> > > compatibility.
> >
> > Windows 7 has about the same requirements as Windows XP if you do 
> > feature parity on both installs. Starting to refer to "over six thousand 
> > bucks" is absurd.
>
> Had no idea. I thoght it needed at least 1GB RAM and 16GB HDD space 
> etcetera? That is well beyond the requirements for Windows XP isn't it?
> > A P4 could run Win 7 fine, and those have been around since 2000....
> > > Gotta love that philosophy "who cares about 2.5GB or 8GB" - the 
> > > operating system starts doing it, and then all the programs follow. 
> > > Remember MSN Messenger 1.0? That was only a few hundred kilobytes to 
> > > few megabytes to install. Now its over 180MB to install.
> >
> > That includes the size of the .NET framework and many other components 
> > -- the actual install is much smaller. Much of that is bitmap, picture 
> > data as well. Also, MSN Messenger 1.0 did not do things like webcam 
> > support, file transfers, etc... so I don't understand the point of the 
> > comparison?
>
> MSN Messenger 1.0 did not include things like a ridiculous skin which 
> cannot be changed, advertisements, etcetera either. The MSN installer does 
> not include the .NET framework.
>
> And is 180MB really needed for text chat AND webcam support? Windows 
> Messenger 5.1 also had webcam support. NetMeeting had it too. They sure as 
> hell weren't even 30MB large.
>
> Here's another example: Adobe Reader - latest version has a 46MB 
> installer! It does fundamentally the same stuff as its predecessors, in 
> fact pretty much the same stuff as Adobe Reader 4.0 - yet the installer is 
> ginormous! You can do similar stuff with Evince for example.
>
> And a classic example: Microsoft Internet Explorer - is very large 
> compared to many other browsers.
>
> What I am trying to get at is that when developers get this attitude that 
> "ah 1.5GB doesn't hurt since you can buy 1.5TB hard drives for ten bucks!" 
> then the software bloat begins.
> > > Which application do you want to bloat today?
> > >
> > > <ps... i think the thread has been derailed>
> >
> > Yes, it has, I demonstrated how "upgrade to Win7" is not such a strange 
> > thing to ask, and instead of accepting defeat to my arguments, you are 
> > talking about 6000$ computers and MSN Messenger 1.0.
>
> Why should I accept defeat for an argument when I have not been defeated? 
> How is it not a strange thing to ask? So basically you are suggesting that 
> people should keep upgrading even if they do not want to? What about 
> enterprise users? They will indeed run into issues when upgrading.
>
> Given all these 'arguments' of yours then, there really is very little, if 
> any, point of having ReactOS around in the first place, since according to 
> you everybody is capable of shelling $$$ into Windows licenses 
> unnecessarily.
>
> Next when Windows 8 comes out will you be suggesting to drop Windows 7 
> support and upgrade to Windows 8 because it supports XYZ feature?
>
> The talk about MSN messenger 1.0 and $6000 computers - I was attempting to 
> point out the attitude of a lot of developers today. "Oh lets make the 
> software big, since it doesn't matter if the user has to download all 
> 100+MB of our installer even though our program doesn't do anything, and 
> lets use all these cool frameworks and runtime libraries to make our apps 
> sound cool even though they are not needed" and all that which is becoming 
> more prevalent these days, compared to back then.
>
> A great motto then for you may be "Which of the users' resources do you 
> want to waste today?"
> > So I'll quit now.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Alex Ionescu
> > > On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 05:34:20 +1000, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] 
> > > wrote:
> > > > Windows 7 runs on pre-2007 computers just fine, so that's irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > Windows 7 is available as a trial, and also for free for students, and 
> > > > also for only 99$ as an upgrade to XP, which came out a decade ago. So 
> > > > there's people who don't have 99$/10 years? How did they get XP then?
> > > >
> > > > Windows 7 does not take up 15GB of disk space. A fresh install of 
> > > > Ultimate uses 8.64GB.
> > > >
> > > > If 8.64GB is too much, you can use Windows 7 for Thin PCs, which is in 
> > > > CTP right now. It uses ~2.7GB of space for a fresh install, only 
> > > > slightly higher than XP's 1.5.
> > > >
> > > > (Also, who the cares about 2.5 or 8GB when you can get a 1TB disk for 
> > > > 100$ these days?)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Alex Ionescu
> > > >
> > > > On 2011-06-04, at 3:03 PM, Adam wrote:
> > > > > I am aware of that. I was talking about Microsoft Windows and not 
> > > > > ReactOS - and was responding to someone who suggested "Update to 
> > > > > Windows Vista+, which has KTM."
> > > > >
> > > > > Please read the messages that are being replied to as well, other 
> > > > > than just the replies.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 04:53:43 +1000, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo 
> > > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > > Adam... ReactOS will not be Win Vista/7 ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Adam [e-mail] 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 
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]> 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 [e-mail] 
> > > > > > >>>> 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 
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> 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" <
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [e-mail]>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 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" <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 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 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: 
> > > > > > >>>>> http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: 
> > > > > > >>> http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > --
> > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> -- 
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Olaf Siejka]

Could you PLEASE DELETE PREVIOUS EMAIL CONTENT, TRAILING AT THE END?? AFTER
SEVERAL MESSAGES INCLUDED THAT WAY, TRYING TO SCROLL FOR MINUTES TO REACH TO
THE NEXT MESSAGE IS NOT BLOODY FUNNY!!
I asked for that several times and you guys are still doing this crap! I
have nothing against including important stuff, even if its lenghty, but
stuff like:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> 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
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> --

IS PISSING ME OFF! Could you please think a bit about others?

Regards

2011/6/5 victor martinez [e-mail]
> This thread has been totally going OffTopic :)
> But as I love this kind of discussion, I will give my opinion.
> 1)Apps, not just MS ones, aren't optimized anymore. I still remember the
> discussions, when coding, with pointer=pointer+1; and pointer++; or
> how functions were optimized to be able to run in a limited hardware. And
> sure, an old Internet Browser was "eating" about 10 MB while one nowadays
> needs about 200MB. 20 times more. Stats taken from latest IE with just one
> tab opened, same applies to FF and Chrome.
> 2)Windows 7 is able to run with less than 1GB. I was able to run it in
> 512MB, not as its antecessor Vista.But Vista was just an agreement with
> Hardware companies to force the movement to 3GB Ram and x64 in laptops,
> preparing the scene for 7 and 8.
> 3)MS needs a new push. 7 doesnt introduce any new *killer* features for
> Governments or *Commun* Enterprises. That is the main reason that nowadays
> XP is still present in 80% of their computers which are being used mainly
> for Writting/EXCELing purposes. The other 20% is coming from the new
> *enforced* Pcs/Laptops which directly comes with 7 installed. I just know 1
> company which decided *freely* to move to 7, but it was a Videogames
> company. When you *force* a company to move from one product to another
> one(i.e: stopping Support ) it creates the current *not*lovely*image* MS
> has. The day MS is able to convince people to buy freely their new OS
> version, that day its *$* image will begin to change..
>
> PS: Peace and Love.

[Riccardo Bestetti]

I can’t start IE on a Turion X2 @2GHz, 4GB ram (win 7), because it literally eats my CPU.
It crashes my PC. It is terrible.
Firefox works fine.

From: victor martinez 
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 1:58 PM
To: [e-mail] 
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...

This thread has been totally going OffTopic :)
But as I love this kind of discussion, I will give my opinion.
1)Apps, not just MS ones, aren't optimized anymore. I still remember the discussions, when coding, with pointer=pointer+1; and pointer++; or how functions were optimized to be able to run in a limited hardware. And sure, an old Internet Browser was "eating" about 10 MB while one nowadays needs about 200MB. 20 times more. Stats taken from latest IE with just one tab opened, same applies to FF and Chrome.
2)Windows 7 is able to run with less than 1GB. I was able to run it in 512MB, not as its antecessor Vista.But Vista was just an agreement with Hardware companies to force the movement to 3GB Ram and x64 in laptops, preparing the scene for 7 and 8.
3)MS needs a new push. 7 doesnt introduce any new *killer* features for Governments or *Commun* Enterprises. That is the main reason that nowadays XP is still present in 80% of their computers which are being used mainly for Writting/EXCELing purposes. The other 20% is coming from the new *enforced* Pcs/Laptops which directly comes with 7 installed. I just know 1 company which decided *freely* to move to 7, but it was a Videogames company. When you *force* a company to move from one product to another one(i.e: stopping Support ) it creates the current *not*lovely*image* MS has. The day MS is able to convince people to buy freely their new OS version, that day its *$* image will begin to change..

PS: Peace and Love.
> To: [e-mail]
> Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2011 12:35:20 +1000
> From: [e-mail]
> CC: ; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
>
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 06:28:56 +1000, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] 
> wrote:
> > On 2011-06-04, at 3:43 PM, Adam wrote:
> > > Many got it pre-installed with their machines. Sure Windows 7 may run 
> > > on pre-2007 machines if you bought it for over six thousand bucks, but 
> > > that still doesn't resolve another issue (which i forgot to mention) - 
> > > compatibility.
> >
> > Windows 7 has about the same requirements as Windows XP if you do 
> > feature parity on both installs. Starting to refer to "over six thousand 
> > bucks" is absurd.
>
> Had no idea. I thoght it needed at least 1GB RAM and 16GB HDD space 
> etcetera? That is well beyond the requirements for Windows XP isn't it?
> > A P4 could run Win 7 fine, and those have been around since 2000....
> > > Gotta love that philosophy "who cares about 2.5GB or 8GB" - the 
> > > operating system starts doing it, and then all the programs follow. 
> > > Remember MSN Messenger 1.0? That was only a few hundred kilobytes to 
> > > few megabytes to install. Now its over 180MB to install.
> >
> > That includes the size of the .NET framework and many other components 
> > -- the actual install is much smaller. Much of that is bitmap, picture 
> > data as well. Also, MSN Messenger 1.0 did not do things like webcam 
> > support, file transfers, etc... so I don't understand the point of the 
> > comparison?
>
> MSN Messenger 1.0 did not include things like a ridiculous skin which 
> cannot be changed, advertisements, etcetera either. The MSN installer does 
> not include the .NET framework.
>
> And is 180MB really needed for text chat AND webcam support? Windows 
> Messenger 5.1 also had webcam support. NetMeeting had it too. They sure as 
> hell weren't even 30MB large.
>
> Here's another example: Adobe Reader - latest version has a 46MB 
> installer! It does fundamentally the same stuff as its predecessors, in 
> fact pretty much the same stuff as Adobe Reader 4.0 - yet the installer is 
> ginormous! You can do similar stuff with Evince for example.
>
> And a classic example: Microsoft Internet Explorer - is very large 
> compared to many other browsers.
>
> What I am trying to get at is that when developers get this attitude that 
> "ah 1.5GB doesn't hurt since you can buy 1.5TB hard drives for ten bucks!" 
> then the software bloat begins.
> > > Which application do you want to bloat today?
> > >
> > > <ps... i think the thread has been derailed>
> >
> > Yes, it has, I demonstrated how "upgrade to Win7" is not such a strange 
> > thing to ask, and instead of accepting defeat to my arguments, you are 
> > talking about 6000$ computers and MSN Messenger 1.0.
>
> Why should I accept defeat for an argument when I have not been defeated? 
> How is it not a strange thing to ask? So basically you are suggesting that 
> people should keep upgrading even if they do not want to? What about 
> enterprise users? They will indeed run into issues when upgrading.
>
> Given all these 'arguments' of yours then, there really is very little, if 
> any, point of having ReactOS around in the first place, since according to 
> you everybody is capable of shelling $$$ into Windows licenses 
> unnecessarily.
>
> Next when Windows 8 comes out will you be suggesting to drop Windows 7 
> support and upgrade to Windows 8 because it supports XYZ feature?
>
> The talk about MSN messenger 1.0 and $6000 computers - I was attempting to 
> point out the attitude of a lot of developers today. "Oh lets make the 
> software big, since it doesn't matter if the user has to download all 
> 100+MB of our installer even though our program doesn't do anything, and 
> lets use all these cool frameworks and runtime libraries to make our apps 
> sound cool even though they are not needed" and all that which is becoming 
> more prevalent these days, compared to back then.
>
> A great motto then for you may be "Which of the users' resources do you 
> want to waste today?"
> > So I'll quit now.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Alex Ionescu
> > > On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 05:34:20 +1000, Alex Ionescu [e-mail] 
> > > wrote:
> > > > Windows 7 runs on pre-2007 computers just fine, so that's irrelevant.
> > > >
> > > > Windows 7 is available as a trial, and also for free for students, and 
> > > > also for only 99$ as an upgrade to XP, which came out a decade ago. So 
> > > > there's people who don't have 99$/10 years? How did they get XP then?
> > > >
> > > > Windows 7 does not take up 15GB of disk space. A fresh install of 
> > > > Ultimate uses 8.64GB.
> > > >
> > > > If 8.64GB is too much, you can use Windows 7 for Thin PCs, which is in 
> > > > CTP right now. It uses ~2.7GB of space for a fresh install, only 
> > > > slightly higher than XP's 1.5.
> > > >
> > > > (Also, who the cares about 2.5 or 8GB when you can get a 1TB disk for 
> > > > 100$ these days?)
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Best regards,
> > > > Alex Ionescu
> > > >
> > > > On 2011-06-04, at 3:03 PM, Adam wrote:
> > > > > I am aware of that. I was talking about Microsoft Windows and not 
> > > > > ReactOS - and was responding to someone who suggested "Update to 
> > > > > Windows Vista+, which has KTM."
> > > > >
> > > > > Please read the messages that are being replied to as well, other 
> > > > > than just the replies.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 04:53:43 +1000, Javier Agustìn Fernàndez Arroyo 
> > > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > > Adam... ReactOS will not be Win Vista/7 ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:05 PM, Adam [e-mail] 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 
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > 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 <
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]> 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 [e-mail] 
> > > > > > >>>> 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 
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> 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" <
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [e-mail]>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> 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" <
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> >
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> To: "ReactOS Development List" [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> 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 
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Timo Kreuzer [e-mail] 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
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: 
> > > > > > >>>>> http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>>>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>>>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>>>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> --
> > > > > > >>> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: 
> > > > > > >>> http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >>> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >>> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >>> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > > > >> Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > >> [e-mail]
> > > > > > >> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > >
> > > --
> > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> -- 
> Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Olaf Siejka]

Are you being a person intellectually deficient? Or just provoking me on any
purpose?

2011/6/5 Riccardo Bestetti [e-mail]
> I can’t start IE on a Turion X2 @2GHz, 4GB ram (win 7), because it
> literally eats my CPU.
> It crashes my PC. It is terrible.
> Firefox works fine.

[whole bunch of trash deleted]

[Riccardo Bestetti]

I wasn’t talking to you, we was talking about browsers and I told what IE does on my PC.
Here the deficient is you.

From: Olaf Siejka 
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 3:07 PM
To: ReactOS Development List 
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...

Are you being a person intellectually deficient? Or just provoking me on any purpose?

2011/6/5 Riccardo Bestetti [e-mail]

I can’t start IE on a Turion X2 @2GHz, 4GB ram (win 7), because it literally eats my CPU.
  It crashes my PC. It is terrible.
  Firefox works fine.
[whole bunch of trash deleted]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Adam]

I wonder if you guys realize this is a public mailing list.

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 23:58:56 +1000, Riccardo Bestetti  
[e-mail] wrote:
> I wasn’t talking to you, we was talking about browsers and I told what  
> IE does on my PC.
> Here the deficient is you.
>
> From: Olaf Siejka
> Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 3:07 PM
> To: ReactOS Development List
> Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
>
> Are you being a person intellectually deficient? Or just provoking me on  
> any purpose?
>
> 2011/6/5 Riccardo Bestetti [e-mail]
>
> I can’t start IE on a Turion X2 @2GHz, 4GB ram (win 7), because it  
> literally eats my CPU.
>   It crashes my PC. It is terrible.
>   Firefox works fine.
> [whole bunch of trash deleted]
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Olaf Siejka]

Yes, I do. I publicly asked, 5th or 6th time, to delete unneeded parts of
quoted emails because they doesnt get hidden over here, hence to read one i
need to scroll for minutes through quoted crap. Its a *good thing* and its
recommended by any newsgroups rules. 11 minutes after that, i`m getting
another mail, which shows that its author has ignored my post completely,
quoting even more crap.

How should I react, being ignored over and over again, with something that
you guys should do automatically, if you ever happen to think about someone
else than oneself?

Did you Riccardo, even bothered to read my message?

Regards

2011/6/5 Adam [e-mail]
> I wonder if you guys realize this is a public mailing list.
>
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 23:58:56 +1000, Riccardo Bestetti <
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
> I wasn’t talking to you, we was talking about browsers and I told what IE
> > does on my PC.
> > Here the deficient is you.
> >
> > From: Olaf Siejka
> > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 3:07 PM
> > To: ReactOS Development List
> >
> > Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
> >
> > Are you being a person intellectually deficient? Or just provoking me on
> > any purpose?

[Ameen Ross]

You missed his previous mail ;)
He said that he emails with lots of replies were almost unreadable and 
requested to remove what's not needed.

On 06/05/2011 03:58 PM, Riccardo Bestetti wrote:
> I wasn’t talking to you, we was talking about browsers and I told what 
> IE does on my PC.
> Here the deficient is you.
> *From:* Olaf Siejka mailto:[e-mail]
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 05, 2011 3:07 PM
> *To:* ReactOS Development List mailto:[e-mail]
> *Subject:* Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
> Are you being a person intellectually deficient? Or just provoking me 
> on any purpose?
>
> 2011/6/5 Riccardo Bestetti <[e-mail] 
> mailto:[e-mail]>
> I can’t start IE on a Turion X2 @2GHz, 4GB ram (win 7), because it
> literally eats my CPU.
> It crashes my PC. It is terrible.
> Firefox works fine.
>
> [whole bunch of trash deleted]
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
>
> Ros-dev mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Riccardo Bestetti]

Yes, I probably missed his previous email, but this isn’t a good reason to say that I am deficient.
Now please, let’s stop to discuss

From: Ameen Ross 
Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 4:04 PM
To: [e-mail] 
Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...

You missed his previous mail ;)
He said that he emails with lots of replies were almost unreadable and requested to remove what's not needed.

On 06/05/2011 03:58 PM, Riccardo Bestetti wrote: 
  I wasn’t talking to you, we was talking about browsers and I told what IE does on my PC.
  Here the deficient is you.

From: Olaf Siejka 
  Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2011 3:07 PM
  To: ReactOS Development List 
  Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...

Are you being a person intellectually deficient? Or just provoking me on any purpose?

2011/6/5 Riccardo Bestetti [e-mail]

I can’t start IE on a Turion X2 @2GHz, 4GB ram (win 7), because it literally eats my CPU.
    It crashes my PC. It is terrible.
    Firefox works fine.
  [whole bunch of trash deleted]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  _______________________________________________
  Ros-dev mailing list
  [e-mail]
  http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ros-dev mailing list
[e-mail]
http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev

[Adam]

One issue I can think of with packing everything up together is that it  
will become 3 times the size of the original BE (you're now packing 3  
copies there) and in addition if ReactOS wants to support more platforms,  
the Build Environment will grow so big it will *appear* to be bloated.

At the same time however it means fewer installers to maintain, but to be  
honest I think that appears to be the only advantage in packing them all  
into one.

On Sat, 04 Jun 2011 00:29:53 +1000, Zachary Gorden  
[e-mail] wrote:
> The user is able to select which ones they want to install.  If they only
> want the x86 BE, they don't have to install the x64 or ARM BE.
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:14 AM, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 17:58:42 +1000, Ged Murphy [e-mail]
> > wrote:
> >
> > When I say wix, I mean windows installer. The two have become  
> > synonymous
> > > for me now.
> > >
> > > Much of what you say isn't true.
> > > The only issue I've ever come across with msi's is that failed installs
> > > can lead to the database becoming corrupt.
> > > However this is very rare and can be repaired in various ways.
> >
> > Now the problem here is: will the end users be able to apply this easily
> > without risk of damaging the other installs? I'm not suggesting  
> > attempting
> > to fix such a problem will damage the other installs or the system, but  
> > are
> > the repair methods clean?
> > > I get the feeling people use NSIS because it's open source and that  
> > > must
> > > mean it's better/cooler.
> > > I prefer to look at the merits of both open and closed and choose the
> > > best.
> > > In 99% of cases, closed source comes out on top.
> >
> > I must admit I am not a big fan of their clumsy syntax myself. Inno  
> > Setup
> > seems better to me. As for open sourcedness - IMO its only really  
> > useful if
> > you have the tools to edit the source. Bottom line is that I agree with
> > this.
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Adam [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > > Sent: 02 June 2011 22:55
> > > To: ReactOS Development List; Ged Murphy
> > > Subject: Re: [ros-dev] 1294 [dreimer] Fix clean for cmake trees. ...
> > >
> > > So having a service running all the time just to install programs, and
> > > having to not be able to uninstall a program cleanly if the MSI file  
> > > has
> > > been moved/deleted (or if the MSI file that was copied into some  
> > > obscure
> > > place in the %SYSTEMROOT% path) or due to some other sort of failure,
> > > provides an error, is clean is it? Not to mention it will be  
> > > impossible to
> > > uninstall in Safe Mode (should it be necessary) since MSIEXEC refuses  
> > > to
> > > run under Safe Mode these days.
> > >
> > > Never tried WiX before, but the problem wouldn't be WiX - it would be
> > > MSIEXEC and the way it works.
> > >
> > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 07:35:56 +1000, Ged Murphy [e-mail]
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > Are you serious? Have you ever used WiX in a serious capacity?
> > > > It's far superior to NSIS in pretty much every way.
> > > >
> > > > On 2 June 2011 22:18, Adam [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > I do not like the idea of moving to Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0 -
> > > > > it can
> > > > > be quite tedious to clean up if the install is half done. IMO the
> > > > > original
> > > > > installer (NSIS) is much more cleaner than Windows Installer too.
> > > > >
> > > > > If it ain't broke don't fix it I say.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 06:52:17 +1000, Colin Finck [e-mail]
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > > > > if not exist "CMakeLists.txt" (
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Can we decide on dropping support for rbuild stuff in RosBE 2.0?
> > > > > > Reasons:
> > > > > > RosBE 2.0 will certainly come with an updated set of build tools.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (GCC 4.6 with mingw-w64 target is planned, maybe even a multilib
> > > > > >  version)
> > > > > >  The target change already makes older builds uncompilable with  
> > > > > > RosBE
> > > > > >  2.0. Even if this would be fixed, nobody would guarantee you that a
> > > > > >  revision built with RosBE 2.0 behaves the same as one compiled with
> > > > > >  1.5.x.
> > > > > > Several versions of RosBE can be installed parallely, especially
> > > > > >
> > > > > > if
> > > > > >  you're also moving to a Windows Installer for RosBE 2.0, which
> > > > > > doesn't
> > > > > >  care about Uninstall entries of NSIS. So everybody has the option
> > > > > >  to build older rbuild-powered revisions at any time.
> > > > > > It could make all scripts cleaner again :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Colin
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> > > > >
> > > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > > [e-mail]
> > > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> > > >
> > > > Ros-dev mailing list
> > > > [e-mail]
> > > > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
> >
> > --
> > Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
> >
> > Ros-dev mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-dev
-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/