Subject: RE: To _USE_ or not to use InstallShield?
From: [email-masked] (John A. Turner)

9 May 1998 23:50:46 -0700
Message-ID: <13653.7515.940000.415863.cygnus.gnu-win32@STRAT>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: [email-masked]

Please keep in mind that I'm a veteran Unix/GNU guy and still quite
new to the Windows world (Windows 95/NT were my first exposure to it).
Still, I don't understand the objections to InstallShield...

Earnie Boyd writes:

 > The advantages of the tarball outweigh the disadvantages and the
 > disadvantages of InstallShield outweigh the advantages.  I can't even
 > think of an advantage to InstallShield given that you don't have to
 > setup the registry keys prior to executing the tools.

I don't understand the disadvantages to InstallShield, except for the
fact that it isn't free.  To me it seems analogous to any of the Unix
packaging formats like Sun's pkgadd or Red Hat's RPM.  SGI also has
one for Irix.

$Bill Luebkert writes:

 > I'm very UNIX-centric and like to know what's happening when I install
 > something.  With a zip or tar or gz file, I know exactly what's going 
 > to happen when I install it.  Everyone on Win95/NT has Winzip which can 
 > handle all three of these guys.

[snip]

 > <SOAPBOX>Go for simplicity; go for obvious; go for in-plain-sight; go 
 > for I-know-what's-happening-when-the-install-runs; go for zip or 
 > tar.gz; down with InstallShield!</SOAPBOX>

Michael Lemke, Sternwarte Bamberg, Phone: +49-951-9522216 writes:

 > Well, I don't know what InstallShield does, seriously.  But I do know
 > what tar,zip etc do and how to reverse it.  I hate things done behind
 > my back.  All these .exe files you don't know what's inside.  Terrible.

Bill and Michael (and/or anyone else who agrees with this argument), 
please tell me if you also eschew the Unix packaging formats like the
ones I mentioned above.  If so, well, OK, at least your stand is
consistent.  If not, then please explain why your position is not
inconsistent.

XEmacs binaries are distributed for Solaris via pkgadd format and for
Linux as RPMs.  It's also distributed as tarballs.  So why bother with
the package formats?  Because a lot of Solaris and Linux binaries are
distributed that way, and people like the ease of install/uninstall
they provide.

So I ask again, how is InstallShield different?

As for "we don't know what's inside", it's a matter of trusting the
source; in this case Cygnus.

Robertson, Jason V writes:

 > Anyway, I can't think of a single convincing argument not to use
 > InstallShield if it's done right.

Nor can I.

Weiqi Gao writes:

 > And this could be acomplished by a simple entry in the FAQ (or the
 > release note): What does the InstallShield installation do exactly?  The
 > answer would typically tell people what files are installed where, and
 > what registry settings are created, modified, deleted.  I don't think
 > the automation done by InstallShield is that different from "make
 > install".

[snip]

I agree with this.

--
John A. Turner                       mailto:[email-masked]
Senior Research Associate            http://www.blueskystudios.com
Blue Sky | VIFX                      http://www.vifx.com
One South Road, Harrison, NY 10528   http://www.lanl.gov/home/turner
Phone: 914-381-8400                  Fax: 914-381-9790/1

-
For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to
"[email-masked]" with one line of text: "help".