Date: Wed, 16 Oct 1996 19:01:25 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Mark Habersack <grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl>
Reply-To: grendel AT ananke DOT amu DOT edu DOT pl
To: Charles Sandmann <sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
cc: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il, fighteer AT cs DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Install thingy
In-Reply-To: <9610151446.AA12922@clio.rice.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.3.95.961016185448.14188G-100000@ananke.amu.edu.pl>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

On Tue, 15 Oct 1996, Charles Sandmann wrote:

>> There will be at least four files needed to run install:
>>   1) CWSDPMI.EXE
>>   2) djvrf2.exe
>>   3) install.bat
>>   4) instl.exe
>> Users have to load all of them and I bet $100 that there will be ones to
>> download only a part of them.

>This is exactly the reason it needs to be a self-extracting executable 
>image - just to make sure all the pieces are there.  You can also put them
>in a zip and expect the user to get an unzip, but then you are starting
>to assume some level of user intelligence :-)
Intelligence or just experience. I know some VERY intelligent people who prove
to be dorks when it comes to play with computer. ;-)

>Some self-extracting formats even allow you to execute a bat file after
>explode - which is perfect for an install type application.
Take RAR 2.0. It even has it's own script language which may be used to create
simple installations.

>Yes, at one time I modified the stub to imbed a copy of CWSDPMI, then write
>it on disk if there wasn't a DPMI available.  There was never a well defined
>need for it, so it got ignored.  For example, in the example above, since
>you need a zip/sfx anyway, how much value is there in reducing the number
>of files by one, but increasing the size of the custom stub in djvrf2.exe
>to include the exact same code?  BTW, I'm not even sure where that code
>is - it might have been nuked in the last disk purge - I just don't know.
The idea was to present user with as small amount of files as possible. When
designing installation software you have to think of, and create it for, the
least experienced users with possibly no knowledge about how specific software
works. And from my experience, I know that for some people need of one program
to have another present is not that obvious. But I agree, if it's not possible
to bundle DPMI server and the application together right now, it's not worth
the hassle.

>For a program which is COMPLETELY standalone, with no external data, bat,
>configuration, or help files, the bound stub might help, but since almost
>all distributions contain either a help, readme, configuration or data
>file in addition to the .EXE, dumping the additional CWSDPMI.EXE in there
>isn't a big deal.  But eventually I'll finish the compressed, imbedded
>stub.  Someday.  Maybe.
I have not much experience in writing server software, but if I might be of
any help...

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Stand straight, look me in the eye and say goodbye
Stand straight, we drifted past the point of reasons why,
Yesterday starts tommorow, tommorow starts today,
The problems always seem to be
  we're picking up the pieces on the ricochet
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ http://ananke.amu.edu.pl/~grendel \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/