On Wednesday, September 26, 2012, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Erik de Bruin > <e...@ixsoftware.nl<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > This is starting to feel like the never-ending [VOTE] :( Are all > > releases going to be like this, or will it get better (smoother, less > > frustrating) later on?... > > I understand your frustration, sorry that I didn't notice the > FLEX-33210 problem earlier, but as I said i'm very surprised that no > one else here seems to be bothered by Flex software blindly installing > stuff on user's boxes. > > If it's just my opinion and a few others say that they don't care > about releasing the installer with FLEX-33210 unresolved, I'll accept > that. > > > ...I honestly feel that adding another dialog to the program > > will do nothing to educate the user - after all, who really reads > > them, you click OK and get on with what you came to the installer for, > > downloading the SDK - I see the legal reasoning behind it and agree, > > reluctantly, that it should be included in the software.... > > It's not a legal matter as far as I'm concerned, more a quality issue, > I personally don't want any Apache software to install stuff on user's > boxes without giving them the opportunity to check what's happening > beforeheand. > > > > > Om, if feel an RC6 (!) coming up in the near future... > > Let's see what others think about FLEX-33210 - mentors for example? > > -Bertrand >
If a potential Flex user is wary of what the SDK installer utility app is actually installing they could always download the source and build it by hand. I see the installer as a utility tool that facilitates all the manual setup. I'm ok with "the honor system" and expecting users to trust the installer. -Omar
