[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Installer UI advices
From: |
Markus Hitter |
Subject: |
Re: Installer UI advices |
Date: |
Tue, 15 Mar 2005 10:24:36 +0100 |
Am 15.03.2005 um 03:23 schrieb M. Uli Kusterer:
[...] from a usability standpoint, there's no difference
Agreed. Obviously some sort of installer allergic here. Most of the
currently available installers put the files to absolute paths but this
can be improved, of course.
OTOH, telling them that there is a disk (which to most users is a
physical medium or device in their computer) inside a file, will
confuse them, because it mixes the concept of files and physical
storage media.
Since it's easy to handle (just double-click), they will learn quickly.
Why would I eject a file?
You don't eject the file, you eject the volume which happens to reside
in a file. This is the same as handling a physical media, i.e. a CD.
Having the user explicitly install required libraries becomes *very*
unwieldy and inconvenient when an application depends on more than one
or two libraries.
Right. This is the same for .zip archived apps as for .dmg archived
apps. Unless you have installers installing into absolute paths, of
course.
More ideal approach would be to scan every appearing volume
automatically but this has to be done carefully to avoid noticeable
system slowdowns.
Slowdowns are the least of my worries. Security is more of an issue. I
don't think an application that has just been downloaded but not
launched should be scanned. Otherwise it'd be the equivalent of
AutoStart ... :-o
There's a little difference between scanning a bundle for what it
contains and actually executing something. :-)
You are right, this has to be done carefully to not allow execution of
unwanted code. You don't want to get this unknown app over there in the
net to be used when you double-click a commonly known document. It's
similar to setting the PATH variable mindfully.
Uli again:
Now, imagine we used an "on-launch-installer"-approach ...
This would be quite similar to what I described above except the
workspace manager would handle it instead of the app its self.
Yes. I don't really care which of them does it.
Well, the app is just unpacked/mounted while the workspace manager is
already running ...
All/most resource pools can be extended by modifying system
variables: PATH, MANPATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH etc.
All of them?
I couldn't think of one which doesn't.
not all GNUstep projects are end-user apps.
You could start there.
Markus
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/
- Re: Installer UI advices, (continued)
- Re: Installer UI advices, Frederico Muñoz, 2005/03/12
- Re: Installer UI advices, M. Uli Kusterer, 2005/03/14
- Re: Installer UI advices, M. Uli Kusterer, 2005/03/11
- Re: Installer UI advices, Markus Hitter, 2005/03/12
- Re: Installer UI advices, M. Uli Kusterer, 2005/03/14
- Re: Installer UI advices, Jesse Ross, 2005/03/14
- Re: Installer UI advices, M. Uli Kusterer, 2005/03/14
- Re: Installer UI advices, Quentin Mathé, 2005/03/15
- Re: Installer UI advices, Markus Hitter, 2005/03/14
- Re: Installer UI advices, M. Uli Kusterer, 2005/03/14
- Re: Installer UI advices,
Markus Hitter <=
- Re: Installer UI advices, Graham J Lee, 2005/03/15
- Re: Installer UI advices, Jesse Ross, 2005/03/15
- Re: Installer UI advices, M. Uli Kusterer, 2005/03/15
- Re: Installer UI advices, Quentin Mathé, 2005/03/15
- Re: Installer UI advices, Jonathan Isom, 2005/03/14
- Re: Installer UI advices, M. Uli Kusterer, 2005/03/14
- Message not available
- Re: Installer UI advices, M. Uli Kusterer, 2005/03/15
- Re: Installer UI advices, Quentin Mathé, 2005/03/15
- Re: Installer UI advices, Benoit, 2005/03/16
- Re: Installer UI advices, M. Uli Kusterer, 2005/03/16