| Author |
Message |
|
| Guest |
 Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:32 am |
 |
|
|
Guest
|
Ashok P. Nadkarni wrote:
> InstallJammer (www.installjammer.com) is open-source, scriptable AND
> *cross platform* (Windows and Unix).
Don't Windows and Unix users generally have quite different expectations
about how installation should work? I would have thought that most Unix
users prefer to use their OS/distribution's package manager, rather than
a standalone executable installer.
--
David Hopwood <david.nospam.hopwood@blueyonder.co.uk>
Post generated from www.trapexit.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David Hopwood wrote:
> Ashok P. Nadkarni wrote:
>
>> InstallJammer (www.installjammer.com) is open-source, scriptable AND
>> *cross platform* (Windows and Unix).
>>
>
> Don't Windows and Unix users generally have quite different expectations
> about how installation should work? I would have thought that most Unix
> users prefer to use their OS/distribution's package manager, rather than
> a standalone executable installer.
>
>
I've only used the Windows version so I'm not sure if the Unix
installers produced by Installjammer are "compatible" with the native
Unix methods.
/Ashok
Post generated from www.trapexit.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:47 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Ashok P. Nadkarni wrote:
> David Hopwood wrote:
> > Ashok P. Nadkarni wrote:
> >> InstallJammer (www.installjammer.com) is open-source,
> >> scriptable AND *cross platform* (Windows and Unix).
> >
> > Don't Windows and Unix users generally have quite different
> > expectations about how installation should work? I would
> > have thought that most Unix users prefer to use their
> > OS/distribution's package manager, rather than a standalone
> > executable installer.
>
> I've only used the Windows version so I'm not sure if the Unix
> installers produced by Installjammer are "compatible" with the
> native Unix methods.
It is not compatible with any Unix/Linux packaging system.
But that system may still be fine for Windows, though.
Just to be even more off-topic, I would like to repeat one point
that I raised during the discussion thread related to packaging
a few months ago.
Introducing a new packaging system, such as erlrt, is very fine,
and very useful, especially to users of Windows and other OSes
without a packaging system. But that packaging system must not
be the only form into which an Erlang application is
distributed.
"Upstream" developers of Erlang applications should still first
distribute their applications is source code form with a simple
build system (makefiles or whatever), and *additionally* and
*optionally*, as ready-to-install packages (Debian packages, BSD
ports, erlrt packages, auto-installers for Windows, etc.).
The imposed use of a particular packaging system by an upstream
application developer would be a *pain in the ass* to some users
(especially users of OSes that already have a good packaging
system) and packagers.
I know that nobody recently suggested otherwise, but I feel
paranoid these days, and just wanted to make a kind
of "preventive rant". 
--
Romain LENGLET
Post generated from www.trapexit.org |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| axel |
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:18 pm |
|
|
|
User
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 271
|
On 2006-07-06 02:26, David Hopwood wrote:
...deleted
> Don't Windows and Unix users generally have quite different expectations
> about how installation should work? I would have thought that most Unix
this one i pass. i do not use windows.
perhaps i could be permitted to compare mac and unix, instead?
on unix i am quite comfortable with a source/compile installation.
whereas on a mac i am only use the normal pre-compiled drag-and-drop
installation. otherwise i forgoe the software.
> users prefer to use their OS/distribution's package manager, rather than
> a standalone executable installer.
''most''? those that do not have the password for root are surely not
able to use their OS/distribution's package manager, are they?
so, does most unix user have root, or not?
bengt
--
EPO guidelines 1978: "If the contribution to the known art resides
solely in a computer program then the subject matter is not
patentable in whatever manner it may be presented in the claims."
Post recived frommailinglist |
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 8:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bengt Kleberg wrote:
> on unix i am quite comfortable with a source/compile installation.
> whereas on a mac i am only use the normal pre-compiled drag-and-drop
> installation. otherwise i forgoe the software.
Actually, I have the Mac/OS X attitude about software even for Windows
and Linux nowadays.
If you ask for my root/administrator password, I dump your software. I
expect to unpack/mount an archive and run.
A package must run in user space to allow me to check it out, if it does
not, I do not install it.
Obviously, there are exceptions (insert rant about Apple packaging their
own software, grrrr ....), but I am making fewer and fewer of them.
-a
Post recived frommailinglist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 3:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2006 Jul 6, at 3:56 PM, Andrew Lentvorski indited:
> Actually, I have the Mac/OS X attitude about software even for
> Windows and Linux nowadays.
>
> If you ask for my root/administrator password, I dump your
> software. I expect to unpack/mount an archive and run.
>
> A package must run in user space to allow me to check it out, if it
> does not, I do not install it.
Fair enough. But then at some point don't you want it integrated a
bit more deeply?
The Mac OS X solution works because the GUI is where you live, so you
don't have to fret about getting 35 things onto your PATH, or about
integrating with the whatis database or creating a user account for a
server to run as, or ...
--Douug
Post recived frommailinglist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:03 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Bengt Kleberg wrote:
> On 2006-07-06 02:26, David Hopwood wrote:
> ...deleted
>
> > Don't Windows and Unix users generally have quite different
> > expectations about how installation should work? I would
> > have thought that most Unix
>
> this one i pass. i do not use windows.
> perhaps i could be permitted to compare mac and unix, instead?
>
> on unix i am quite comfortable with a source/compile
> installation. whereas on a mac i am only use the normal
> pre-compiled drag-and-drop installation. otherwise i forgoe
> the software.
And how do you do upgrades? And uninstallations?
> > users prefer to use their OS/distribution's package manager,
> > rather than a standalone executable installer.
>
> ''most''? those that do not have the password for root are
> surely not able to use their OS/distribution's package
> manager, are they? so, does most unix user have root, or not?
"Users" above also includes administrators.
If you don't have root access, or if your administrator has not
given you enough sudo(1) rights, then your administrator should
be willing to help you install the software that you need to do
your work. If he is not willing to help, and then you have no
way to install software correctly (i.e., using the OS's
packaging system if there is one, and respecting standards such
as the LSB and the FHS), then that system administrator should
be fired.
This reminds me of "security managers" who are responsible for
the maintainance of firewalls, but who systematically refuse to
open ports that are necessary for work (CVS, etc.). In the end,
users are forced to establish (in secret!) SSH or HTTP tunnels
with systems outside, or even to buy separate xDSL lines using
the company's budget, to have direct access to the outside
without having to use the company's network (yes, I have seen
that IRL!), which completely ruins the interest of having a
firewall in the first place.
Stated otherwise, if you can't use the packaging system of your
OS to install and upgrade software (even if this would require
that you ask your administrator to do so), it is not a technical
problem, but it is a human and managerial one. Don't expect a
technical solution to solve this problem.
And when administrators have to manage several tens or hundreds
of computers, what do you believe they prefer: (1) download
sources and compile, and install by hand all software, on every
computer, and for every installation or upgrade of every
software, or (2) use automatic tools based on existing packaging
systems (e.g., cfengine, apt, fai, etc. for GNU/Linux distros)?
--
Romain LENGLET
Post recived frommailinglist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 6:41 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Romain Lenglet <rlenglet@users.forge.objectweb.org> wrote:
If you don't have root access, or if your administrator has not
given you enough sudo(1) rights, then your administrator should
be willing to help you install the software that you need to do
your work.
On the UltraSPARC II box that I use, my sysadmin made a /users/local
directory with lots of space for me to play with. As long as software
lets me "waltz" with a
ONE ./configure --prefix=/users/local
TWO make
THREE make install
I can use it.
On the MacOS X box that I use, I have a $HOME/local directory,
and as long as software lets me "waltz" with a
ONE ./configure --prefix=$HOME/local
TWO make
THREE make install
I can use it. That's because I have the developer tools installed.
Too much potentially useful Mac software assumes
(1) You do not have the developer tools, so you have to install binaries;
(2) You DO have root access, so stuff can be placed in /Applications and
Library.
That stuff I cannot install (which is why I don't have SML on my Mac).
Other software assumes I can use something called fink, which again
assumes that I have root access so stuff can be placed in /usr/local
and so on. That stuff I cannot install either.
If he is not willing to help, and then you have no
way to install software correctly (i.e., using the OS's
packaging system if there is one, and respecting standards such
as the LSB and the FHS), then that system administrator should
be fired.
You have forgotten the third alternative:
- user cannot install (because stuff would have to go into
directories the user does not have permission to change)
- sysadmin is WILLING to help
- sysadmin is seriously snowed under with other higher-priority work.
We have ONE Macintosh expert to look after all staff and student Macs in
this department, AND she has other jobs to do as well. We also have ONE
Unix expert.
There are very pleasant MacOS X programs, like the ICab web and Amaya
browsers and Ambrai and Squeak Smalltalk and OpenOffice which are or
contain binaries but let you put them anywhere.
Stated otherwise, if you can't use the packaging system of your
OS to install and upgrade software (even if this would require
that you ask your administrator to do so), it is not a technical
problem, but it is a human and managerial one. Don't expect a
technical solution to solve this problem.
The managerial problem is the fundamental one.
Post recived frommailinglist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| axel |
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 2:46 pm |
|
|
|
User
Joined: 03 Mar 2005
Posts: 271
|
Romain Lenglet <rlenglet@users.forge.objectweb.org>On 2006-07-07 05:50,
Romain Lenglet wrote:
> Bengt Kleberg wrote:
...deleted
>> on unix i am quite comfortable with a source/compile
>> installation. whereas on a mac i am only use the normal
>> pre-compiled drag-and-drop installation. otherwise i forgoe
>> the software.
>
> And how do you do upgrades? And uninstallations?
on unix i get the new-version.
[compile]/install it as <application>-<new-version>
move the link <application> from <application>-<old-version> to
<application>-<new-version>.
uninstallation is
rm -rf <application>-<old-version>
on mac i get the new-version.
drag-and-drop it <somewhere>
uninstallation is drag to trash.
>> those that do not have the password for root are
>> surely not able to use their OS/distribution's package
>> manager, are they? so, does most unix user have root, or not?
>
> "Users" above also includes administrators.
> If you don't have root access, or if your administrator has not
> given you enough sudo(1) rights, then your administrator should
> be willing to help you install the software that you need to do
> your work. If he is not willing to help, and then you have no
> way to install software correctly (i.e., using the OS's
> packaging system if there is one, and respecting standards such
> as the LSB and the FHS), then that system administrator should
> be fired.
this is the first time you mention ''software that you need to do your
work''. that makes a change. in that case there is never any problem.
i was not considering only such software.
...deleted
> Stated otherwise, if you can't use the packaging system of your
> OS to install and upgrade software (even if this would require
> that you ask your administrator to do so), it is not a technical
> problem, but it is a human and managerial one. Don't expect a
> technical solution to solve this problem.
i was kind of hoping that it would be possible to install software that
i like but is not needed to do my work. eg: i can do my work with one of
ed, vi, textedit and emacs, but i prefer to use wily.
> And when administrators have to manage several tens or hundreds
> of computers, what do you believe they prefer: (1) download
> sources and compile, and install by hand all software, on every
> computer, and for every installation or upgrade of every
> software, or (2) use automatic tools based on existing packaging
> systems (e.g., cfengine, apt, fai, etc. for GNU/Linux distros)?
when i was a sysadm i used exported/mounted filesystems, instead of
installing on each individual machine. there where no GNU/Linux distros.
heterogenous systems meant build-your-own-solution when i was doing
this. now i would need to check, before i know.
has cfengine now evolved their own packaging? interesting. i only used
version 1, to keep files in /etc up to date.
bengt
--
EPO guidelines 1978: "If the contribution to the known art resides
solely in a computer program then the subject matter is not
patentable in whatever manner it may be presented in the claims."
Post recived frommailinglist |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are GMT
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Digg It
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Facebook
Stumble Upon
Technorati
