Re: InstallJammer 1.0a1 Released!

Ralf Fassel wrote:
* Dan Smart <news@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
| > | The binaries at the site are zip files--just unzip 'em.
| > Then why are they not named accordingly?
| | Because they are also a programs? That being how most of the wraop
| a bunch of scripts into a program mechanisms work?
| [...] How does it keep users of other OS out? 

The 'usual' distribution mechanism for programs on Unix was zipped
tarfiles up to now.  If 'they' provide executables or self extracting
archives, I expect something either named for my OS, or something that
runs on every OS (like a shar archive).  I sure do not expect a file
named *linux*.bin to contain a ZIP archive, if not even 'file' tells
me so.  So if I'm looking for the !linux version, at least *I* don't
bother very much longer when I look at the distribution site.

The downloadable programs are executables, one for Windows, and one for Linux. They don't install, they don't need to be unpacked and built, they just run. They also happen to be zip files that contain the tcl sources.

I can understand that one cannot expect the average Windows user to
have all software installed which is necessary to unzip an archive.
But the average Linux box _has_ everything installed (gzip), and on
other platforms the executable format is worth just nothing.
On linux and windows that executable formats are very valuable, because they don't need installing or building, you can just use them.

Plus, it is so easy: just provide another file named .tgz (might just
be a copy of the .bin!), or at least have some wording on the
distribution page that `for other platforms, use the linux file as ZIP
archive'.


The second post by Damon Courtney said:
>   I didn't have a chance to put out a .tar.gz file yet.
> The binaries are not Tclkits, so no, you can't unwrap
> them with SDX.  They are zip files however, so you could
> unpack them if you like.  I will update the release with
> a .tar.gz shortly. 0-]

So what exactly is your problem? 

| Anyone can unzip it, onl;y people on the OS for which the specific
| program was built can run it.

So todays folks are born with the knowledge that one just can unzip
arbitrary linux executables on say HP-UX?  Must be the next generation
taking over here...
I expect that after someone has been told that they can unzip the exeutables, that they will know that the executables are unzippable, no more, no less.


| Dan "All typed by hand this time, not going to do that again soon
| though" Smart

Gute Besserung!
R', 'nuff said

I think my ability to dictate is improving, any aerros above are likely post dictation edits.

Dan "I wish my shoulder didn't hurt" Smart
.

Relevant Pages

  • Ann kbs 0.2.1
    ... Tested are Linux, SunOS, Windows and ... [Tclkit Lite]: http://www.equi4.com/tclkit/tclkitlite.html ... Build executables: ... ./kbs.tcl -r install kbskit-8.5 ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)
  • Ann kbs 0.2
    ... Tested are Linux, SunOS, Windows and ... [Tclkit Lite]: http://www.equi4.com/tclkit/tclkitlite.html ... Build executables: ... ./kbs.tcl -r install kbskit-8.5 ...
    (comp.lang.tcl)
  • Re: How do we know when were there yet ?
    ... there have been Linux viruses for a decade. ... so does the Bliss code. ... Bliss looks around for other Linux ELF executables it can infect (to ... Or, better yet, install a good file-based intrusion ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: netscape 7.2
    ... >> First, a technicality, but linux refers to the kernel. ... >> the executables are. ... >> gnome menu to the newer version. ... That would require a new install. ...
    (alt.linux)
  • Re: executable zip
    ... archives. ... There's probably a way to compile it so it runs under linux ... but creates Windows executables. ...
    (comp.os.linux.misc)