The more options in the installer,the better.There will always be people (Trust me,I am one of them haha) that will wonder "Where's the program options","WHY CAN'T I CHANGE THE NAME OF MY DRIVE" or "WHY CAN'T I CHANGE THE INSTALLER SCHEME TO GREEN ON BLACK?". (The last two would probably be me).Plus,it allows for smoother installation of the OS.If you give someone a car,and tell them they can only change the seat,they won't get the car anywhere. (That was a horrible analogy,but it proves its point.).Take LINUX for example.It has a rather simple installer,dumbified for the less tech-savvy people.But,it also has options for advanced/power hungry user.Our installer should be able to meet ALL of the ranges of people.Hence,why we have an advanced mode and a simple mode.As for the BAT or EXE thing,whatever one is FASTER,more RELIABLE,and uses LESS memory is preferable.If BATCH has better uses than EXE,and it allows the job to be done with more efficiency,then use BAT.But,if an EXE is more efficient,then use that.Compatibility with older PCs would be the next step (For example,have a floppy based installer for the older PCs,and a regular CD/USB [RUFUS] based installer for the more modern computers (1998-2015+)).As for having one HUGE file,that isn't really a great idea.If we divide it up into modules,or separate files,it would allow for more mobility in executing specified code,along with more organization.Plus,we don't want that huge file taking up a lot of space.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Rugxulo <rugx...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:49 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. > <jer...@shidel.net> wrote: > > > > Oh, I should also mention. If you want super-simple batch file install, > > I could combine it all together, drop advanced mode and several > > other features like theming, muti-language support, hard code the > > package installation and some other stuff. Probably, could squeeze > > it into a single batch file. > > > > It’s up to you Jim. :) > > That sounds like a bad idea (to combine into one huge monolithic > file). Certainly I would not recommend to remove any features just for > alleged simplicity. > > While I agree that .BAT isn't ideal, it has its uses. For now, we > don't have any good, reliable alternatives. > > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Jerome E. Shidel Jr. > <jer...@shidel.net> wrote: > > > > Being broken up in this way, makes it easy for people to fix, extend and > > customize future versions. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > _______________________________________________ > Freedos-devel mailing list > Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list Freedos-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
