Quoth "John Gabriele": > >Just looking for folks' opinions on the value of the "software >installer" for OpenBeOS. > I've personally never had any use for an installer for BeOS. Never >learned how to use >SoftwareValet -- always seemed way too complicated. I much prefer >unzipping an archive >to where I want the app installed (for me, it's ~/apps_n_utils) and >then, if required, copy >a couple of shared libs to ~/config/lib. > >I realize, of course, that OBOS will need at least some rudimentary >utility to install >pkg files (that is, if it achieves binary compatibility with BeOS R5 >apps) -- I just don't dig >the full-blown SV. > >I see how you need something like InstallShield for that other OS >because of the complexity >involved with [shudder, pause, wipe cold sweat from brow] ... the >registry. Or "package >management" on GNU-Linux because, well, for me, because I don't know >where anything >goes in that OS. But things are just so simple in Be/OBOS -- I can't >see it being too much to >ask a user to unzip a zip file and then copy a couple libraries. Oh, >and maybe also go >Be Menu --> Configure Be Menu to add the app's icon to the Menu. > >Can't we assume OBOS users can handle this? Sure, the current ones. One thing that I have huge respect for microsoft for is their Windows Update stuff. It seems to work 99% of the time, and when it doesn't, it's only difficult to fix because of the monstrosity of the registry and related bits. (I run windows on half a machine at home, out of 5, so I'm not a windows zealot whatsoever) I have no problems personally with manually installing everything, but for ease of use in the future, it sure would be nice to have something as well built as Windows Update, which would include a standardized installer (I'm not really sure what SV does, I haven't touched BeOS very deeply yet).