Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Samstag, den 17.03.2018, 21:32 -0400 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> I agree that the current text is confusing. I wonder if we can
> improve
> on the confusion by just saying something like
> 
> Unfortunately, official LyX 2.3.0 Windows binaries are not
> available
> at this time. The most recent LyX release that has official
> Windows
> binaries is 2.2.3. There are 2 Windows installer variants:
> 
> I will make that change.
> 
> If you think that it is still too confusing, and other developers
> also
> agree that we should hide that text, I can be convinced.

I am fine with that, but probably you should change the text below to

"For Cygwin, however, there is a binary for 2.3.0. It can be downloaded
here: lyx-2.3.0-cygwin.tar.gz."

Jürgen

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sat, Mar 17, 2018 at 06:15:20PM +, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 15.03.2018, 15:08 -0400 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> > > Leaving 2.2.3 as it is?
> > 
> > Yes I think so. 
> 
> I suggest to hide the text mentioning the two installer variants (and
> pointing to 2.2.3). It probably irritates more than it helps, see
> http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/11079

I agree that the current text is confusing. I wonder if we can improve
on the confusion by just saying something like

Unfortunately, official LyX 2.3.0 Windows binaries are not available
at this time. The most recent LyX release that has official Windows
binaries is 2.2.3. There are 2 Windows installer variants:

I will make that change.

If you think that it is still too confusing, and other developers also
agree that we should hide that text, I can be convinced.

> The 2.2.3 binaries are still reachable, after all, via "Previous
> versions".

But that requires a few extra clicks.

> I'd also keep the link to the LyX for Windows wiki page, where Uwe or
> somebody else might add information should there be "inofficial"
> binaries we do not want to officially list on the website.

Agreed.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am Donnerstag, den 15.03.2018, 15:08 -0400 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> > Leaving 2.2.3 as it is?
> 
> Yes I think so. 

I suggest to hide the text mentioning the two installer variants (and
pointing to 2.2.3). It probably irritates more than it helps, see
http://www.lyx.org/trac/ticket/11079

The 2.2.3 binaries are still reachable, after all, via "Previous
versions".

I'd also keep the link to the LyX for Windows wiki page, where Uwe or
somebody else might add information should there be "inofficial"
binaries we do not want to officially list on the website.

Jürgen


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 07:53:56AM +, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > Yes I think so. After the text "There are 2 Windows installer
> > variants:", I think we could add the similar (adding just the version
> > info) text as in the announcement:
> > 
> >   Unfortunately, official LyX 2.3.0 Windows binaries are not available
> >   at this time.
> > 
> > Should we attempt to clarify the text in order to account for the
> > availability of Cygwin binaries? i.e. one might consider Cygwin binaries
> > to be "Windows binaries", and Cygwin binaries for 2.3.0 are available.
> > My current opinion is to not worry about that, but I'm open.
> 
> I wouldn't worry about that now either. Just make the release, the windows
> situation will need more time to be resolved. The statement above seems
> just fine.

Sounds good.

Thanks,

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Pavel Sanda]

Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> Yes I think so. After the text "There are 2 Windows installer
> variants:", I think we could add the similar (adding just the version
> info) text as in the announcement:
> 
>   Unfortunately, official LyX 2.3.0 Windows binaries are not available
>   at this time.
> 
> Should we attempt to clarify the text in order to account for the
> availability of Cygwin binaries? i.e. one might consider Cygwin binaries
> to be "Windows binaries", and Cygwin binaries for 2.3.0 are available.
> My current opinion is to not worry about that, but I'm open.

I wouldn't worry about that now either. Just make the release, the windows
situation will need more time to be resolved. The statement above seems
just fine.

Pavel

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 08:28:44AM +, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > > I agree. I will remove the Windows binaries from the FTP, and announce
> > > 2.3.0 on Friday.
> > 
> > For the announce email I'm currently planning to put something like the
> > following:
> > 
> >   Unfortunately, official Windows binaries are not available at this
> >   time.
> 
> What you plan to do with Windows section in Download page?
> Leaving 2.2.3 as it is?

Yes I think so. After the text "There are 2 Windows installer
variants:", I think we could add the similar (adding just the version
info) text as in the announcement:

  Unfortunately, official LyX 2.3.0 Windows binaries are not available
  at this time.

Should we attempt to clarify the text in order to account for the
availability of Cygwin binaries? i.e. one might consider Cygwin binaries
to be "Windows binaries", and Cygwin binaries for 2.3.0 are available.
My current opinion is to not worry about that, but I'm open.

Any other suggestions?

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Pavel Sanda]

Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> > I agree. I will remove the Windows binaries from the FTP, and announce
> > 2.3.0 on Friday.
> 
> For the announce email I'm currently planning to put something like the
> following:
> 
>   Unfortunately, official Windows binaries are not available at this
>   time.

What you plan to do with Windows section in Download page?
Leaving 2.2.3 as it is?

Pavel

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Am 15.03.2018 4:12 vorm. schrieb "Scott


I still have the hope that we can upload the Windows binaries soon.


I certainly hope so, too!

Jürgen


Scott

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 03:12:26AM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 06:23:31AM +, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> 
> > I think (and I actually propose herewith) that we should release LyX 2.3.0
> > now, without the Windows installer.
> 
> I agree. I will remove the Windows binaries from the FTP, and announce
> 2.3.0 on Friday.

For the announce email I'm currently planning to put something like the
following:

  Unfortunately, official Windows binaries are not available at this
  time.

This hints at the following:

  1. unofficial Windows binaries might be available if users want them.
  2. "at this time" reflects my hope that we will be able to upload them
 at a later time.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 06:23:31AM +, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:

> I think (and I actually propose herewith) that we should release LyX 2.3.0
> now, without the Windows installer.

I agree. I will remove the Windows binaries from the FTP, and announce
2.3.0 on Friday.

I still have the hope that we can upload the Windows binaries soon. I
will continue the lyx-users thread. Maybe if we come up with a dialog
that users on lyx-users agree would not be confusing, Uwe will be
interested in including the dialog.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 14/03/2018 à 12:52, Pavel Sanda a écrit :

Abdelrazak Younes wrote:

AFAIU, it is too late already.


2 weeks already...



Too bad!


It's actually exactly two weeks. LyX 2.3.0 already hit testing branch of Debian.
Maybe if we filed a request at ubuntu bugzilla we might still have chance, don't
know how strict they are with the march 1 deadline, but my guess is they are ;)
JMarc, you were active on their tracker no?


I am active fo things I understand (LyX bug). But Ubuntu policies is not 
part of what I understand.



Hmm, we are getting slower than conservative folks in debian... :)


Indeed.

JMarc

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Abdelrazak Younes]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:

> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > Thanks, I sometime read the devel list just for fun :-)
>
> That's a bizarre form of masochism :)
> Where do you live now, there were some rumors we might try to organize
> development meeting after the years...
>

Living close to Lausanne in Switzerland, well I guess we could organize one
here, I can book a nice meeting room for the week-end.

Abdel

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Pavel Sanda]

Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > > AFAIU, it is too late already.
> >
> > 2 weeks already...
> >
> 
> Too bad!

It's actually exactly two weeks. LyX 2.3.0 already hit testing branch of Debian.
Maybe if we filed a request at ubuntu bugzilla we might still have chance, don't
know how strict they are with the march 1 deadline, but my guess is they are ;)
JMarc, you were active on their tracker no?

Hmm, we are getting slower than conservative folks in debian... :)

Pavel

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Pavel Sanda]

Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Thanks, I sometime read the devel list just for fun :-)

That's a bizarre form of masochism :)
Where do you live now, there were some rumors we might try to organize
development meeting after the years...

Pavel

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Abdelrazak Younes]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:

> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Le 14/03/2018 ?? 11:10, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
> >> By the way, you should definitely release now in order to get into next
> >> Ubuntu LTS release...
> >
> > AFAIU, it is too late already.
>
> 2 weeks already...
>

Too bad!


> Hi Abdel, nice to hear you again!! :)
>


Thanks, I sometime read the devel list just for fun :-)

You guys are still doing a great job, congratz for this release!

Abdel

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Jean-Pierre Chrétien]

Le 14/03/2018 à 02:43, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :

[...]



So the average user does not know how LaTeX works, what a package is and how it 
is installed or uninstalled.


Sure he does know if he installed LyX himself. as I pointed out in the other 
thread. I tried to be an average Window user (a bit difficult, as I am neither 
for LyX as I am experienced nor for Windows 10 as I know very little about it) 
and ran the last bundle installer.
The reference to MiKTeX is present throughout the installation process, 
particularly of course during the MiKTeX install itself, but also when MiKTeX 
installs missing LaTeX packages.


As I wrote, most of my students and colleagues at the University uses LyX for 
large documents without knowing anything about LaTeX.


Did they install themselves, or did some experienced guy did it for them?

Why don't you trust my experience in helping LyX users? Why should I lie to you 
with my experience?


I am convinced that none of us deny your experience and think that you are lying 
in any manner.


Therefore our main userbase are just users. The task of the installer is to 
provide a working LyX for them.
Users with more knowledge know what to do and how LaTeX works. Therefore I won't 
bother the majority of users with a decision they cannot make because lack of 
knowledge. I explained now a dozen times why I cannot allow these users to deny 
an update because then their LaTeX can be broken and they are lost.
The experienced users have already all possibilities to handle LaTeX differently 
as I wrote.


The current shortened version of the new dialog which could be inserted at the 
very beginning of the installation process is clearly addressed to people 
knowing something about MiKTeX.



The LyX installer requires to update MiKTeX to the newest 2.9 version.
If you use MiKTeX with other applications and do not want to update now,
cancel the LyX installation.
  Cancel Continue


Plain users are thus urged to continue without further hesitation, as you do in 
the bundle installer when it comes to the MiKTeX install:



${LangFileString} LatexInfo 'Now the installer of the LaTeX-distribution 
$\"MiKTeX$\" will be launched.$\r$\n\
57	To install the program press the 
$\"Next$\"-button in the installer windows until the installation begins.$\r$\n\

58  $\r$\n\
59	!!! Please use all default options of the 
MiKTeX-installer !!!'



[...]



I do not know how we should resolve this matter now. But, longer term,
we need someone to create a Windows installer that JUST installs LyX,
much the way the OSX installer does. As JMarc said, users on OSX seem to
manage to install a LaTeX distribution, etc, independently. Surely
Windows users can manage to do the same.


I cannot accept that you are telling me what is good for Windows users. I 
explained my decision but you are not understanding. Why don't you try it out 
yourself to see what can happen?


Nobody here wants to tell you what is good for Windows users, the question 
raised is about what is good for the future of LyX. The present situation shows 
clearly that the packaging approach has attained some limits.
I understand that you may be exhausted to explain again and again to Linux users 
(accustomed to global OS packaging e.g. with experimental, unstable, testing and 
stable releases) that Windows is such a weird OS with lots of software 
instabilities that proposing a  LyX packaging is the only way to make LyX work. 
But the debate must take place in a non passionate manner, later on.


The urgent action is the 2.3.0 release.

--
Jean-Pierre

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Pavel Sanda]

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 14/03/2018 ?? 11:10, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
>> By the way, you should definitely release now in order to get into next 
>> Ubuntu LTS release...
>
> AFAIU, it is too late already.

2 weeks already...

Hi Abdel, nice to hear you again!! :)

Pavel

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 14/03/2018 à 11:10, Abdelrazak Younes a écrit :
By the way, you should definitely release now in order to get into next 
Ubuntu LTS release...


AFAIU, it is too late already.

JMarc

PS: Hi Abdel!

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Abdelrazak Younes]

By the way, you should definitely release now in order to get into next
Ubuntu LTS release...


On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Abdelrazak Younes  wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> In the old days we had the Friday rule for fight... you should restore the
> tradition :-)
>
> Cheers,
> Abdel
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller  wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>> I have kept calm in this debate until now, but since this is getting more
>> and more ridiculous, here is my position.
>>
>> I think (and I actually propose herewith) that we should release LyX
>> 2.3.0 now, without the Windows installer.
>>
>> It is unacceptable that one single developer holds up a major release
>> while refusing to accept (1) the majority position (actually, the position
>> of _any_ other developer besides himself) and (2) even the release
>> manager's decision.
>>
>> It seems clear that Uwe holds the view that he is the only person who
>> knows what Windows users want and need, and how the installer has to look
>> like. I am sure he has reasons to believe this, but under this condition, I
>> do not consider the Windows installer a part of this community project,
>> since a community project requires that developers accept (1) and (2)
>> above. Since this is an open source (and GPLed) software, Uwe is free to
>> release "his" installer somewhere else, in the shape and form he consider
>> "right", and he does not need to bother with our "unqualified" arguments.
>>
>> With all due respect to Uwe as a person and as a developer. But we cannot
>> proceed like this.
>>
>> Jürgen
>>
>
>

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Abdelrazak Younes]

Hi Guys,

In the old days we had the Friday rule for fight... you should restore the
tradition :-)

Cheers,
Abdel


On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 7:23 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller  wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> I have kept calm in this debate until now, but since this is getting more
> and more ridiculous, here is my position.
>
> I think (and I actually propose herewith) that we should release LyX 2.3.0
> now, without the Windows installer.
>
> It is unacceptable that one single developer holds up a major release
> while refusing to accept (1) the majority position (actually, the position
> of _any_ other developer besides himself) and (2) even the release
> manager's decision.
>
> It seems clear that Uwe holds the view that he is the only person who
> knows what Windows users want and need, and how the installer has to look
> like. I am sure he has reasons to believe this, but under this condition, I
> do not consider the Windows installer a part of this community project,
> since a community project requires that developers accept (1) and (2)
> above. Since this is an open source (and GPLed) software, Uwe is free to
> release "his" installer somewhere else, in the shape and form he consider
> "right", and he does not need to bother with our "unqualified" arguments.
>
> With all due respect to Uwe as a person and as a developer. But we cannot
> proceed like this.
>
> Jürgen
>

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Dear all,

I have kept calm in this debate until now, but since this is getting more
and more ridiculous, here is my position.

I think (and I actually propose herewith) that we should release LyX 2.3.0
now, without the Windows installer.

It is unacceptable that one single developer holds up a major release while
refusing to accept (1) the majority position (actually, the position of
_any_ other developer besides himself) and (2) even the release manager's
decision.

It seems clear that Uwe holds the view that he is the only person who knows
what Windows users want and need, and how the installer has to look like. I
am sure he has reasons to believe this, but under this condition, I do not
consider the Windows installer a part of this community project, since a
community project requires that developers accept (1) and (2) above. Since
this is an open source (and GPLed) software, Uwe is free to release "his"
installer somewhere else, in the shape and form he consider "right", and he
does not need to bother with our "unqualified" arguments.

With all due respect to Uwe as a person and as a developer. But we cannot
proceed like this.

Jürgen

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Richard Heck]

On 03/13/2018 09:43 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 12.03.2018 um 04:32 schrieb Richard Heck:
>
>> That is a serious mistake: to focus on "average users". But it has
>> clearly become pointless to discuss this any longer.
>
> Dear Richard,
>
> I cannot leave this commented because it is too fundamental. I tried
> to calm down, but cannot.

Pardon me if this seems presumptuous, but it does seem to me as if you
are much too invested,
emotionally, in these issues. We are talking about software.

> What is LyX for? It is a frontend for LaTeX. It is designed to hide
> LaTeX from the users. 

That is your opinion, I understand. But I disagree. It is true that LyX
makes it possible to
take advantage of LaTeX's typesetting abilities without knowing anything
about LaTeX
*as long as your needs are very basic*. It is misleading to tell people
anything else, and I do
not myself see why we should cater specially to users whose needs remain
at such a basic
level. To me, what is most valuable about LyX is how it *eases the
learning curve* for
people who are new to LaTeX. Honestly: Look at the kinds of posts we get
on lyx-users.
The great majority of these are actually about LaTeX. I wonder how many
users we LOSE
because of false advertising: users who think LyX will make it possible
for them to do all
kinds of things that you simply can't do without knowing some LaTeX.
E.g., change how
section titles are displayed. It's a very simple thing to want to do,
but it is actually very
hard to do in LyX, as opposed to Word, and for good reason.

There's a real change of mindset involved in moving from Word etc to LyX
and LaTeX
that we understate at our peril.

>> It has become a serious problem the extent to which *MiKTeX* bugs now
>> delay LyX releases,
>
> When did we had the last time a delay because of a bug in MiKTeX?

There have been at least two such occasions since I've been branch
maintainer. I can
look up the emails if you like. And this one has been really painful,
requiring three or
four different installers before we even got to the release.

> We had much, much more problems in the past with ImageMagick. I had to
> create
> many installer builds because of this program.

I know, and I have had to upload them. This is just the same problem.
LyX should not be
integrated with such programs the way it apparently is on Windows. OSX
and Linux users
do not have these issues. We do not need new installers, because the
installation of LyX is
independent of these other programs. They can be upgraded independently,
if users need
new features or bug fixes, or not, if they do not. I do not see why we
cannot do something
similar on Windows.

>> LyX was never meant to be so closely integrated with a particular LaTeX
>> distribution, and it was a mistake to make it so.
>
> Again, please try our LyX under windows by yourself before you continue.
> take a Win users without knowledge of LaTeX and they should use TeXLive. 

I am not saying you should integrate LyX instead with TeXLive. I am
saying that it
would be a lot better for everyone if the Windows installer, just as on
OSX or Linux,
ONLY installed LyX and did not try to manage everything else. To try to
do what you
have been trying to do is to try to do something *impossible*.

Please read what follows carefully.

I do understand why you'd like to manage everything on which LyX
depends: TeX,
ImageMagick, etc, etc, etc. It's a great idea to have a package
management system
that handles all those dependencies. But you are consigning yourself to
misery if you
are going to try create such a thing yourself on Windows just for LyX.
The various
Linux distributions have HUGE TEAMS of people who work on nothing else.
It is
a HUGE project to do this. Linxu distros are incredibly careful about
what updates they
incorporate into various releases; they distinguish 'long term' releases
from 'bleeding
edge' releases; and so forth. Whereas LyX on Windows, by contrast, seems
to be
vulnerable to every update of every piece of software on which it
depends. That
makes LyX, or our users, way too vulnerable to bugs that turn up in
other programs
on which we rely. Ask José about it. He has a lot of experience. And the
problems
we have just had with MiKTeX make this all the more apparent.

Granted, users who decided to install MiKTeX with LyX would still have
those
problems. But then those would be *MiKTeX* problems, not our problems, and
not problems that would delay the release of a MAJOR version for a week
or more.
Can't you see how ridiculous that is?

It's a valiant effort what you are trying to do, but in the end it has
created a huge
problem both for you and for the rest of the LyX community.

Richard

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 12.03.2018 um 04:32 schrieb Richard Heck:


That is a serious mistake: to focus on "average users". But it has
clearly become pointless to discuss this any longer.


Dear Richard,

I cannot leave this commented because it is too fundamental. I tried to 
calm down, but cannot.


What is LyX for? It is a frontend for LaTeX. It is designed to hide 
LaTeX from the users. Because of this I came once to LyX: "Cool, I don't 
have to learn LaTeX but can use it!". This way I used it for about a 
year for internship protocols at the University. So long after I came to 
LyX I started to learn what is behind it.
As new LyX user you will first learn in sec. 6 of the UserGuide 
something of LaTeX and there also not about package handling.
( Users liking to work with LaTeX directly can and will use other 
editors like TeXWorks.)


So the average user does not know how LaTeX works, what a package is and 
how it is installed or uninstalled.
As I wrote, most of my students and colleagues at the University uses 
LyX for large documents without knowing anything about LaTeX.
Why don't you trust my experience in helping LyX users? Why should I lie 
to you with my experience?


Therefore our main userbase are just users. The task of the installer is 
to provide a working LyX for them.
Users with more knowledge know what to do and how LaTeX works. Therefore 
I won't bother the majority of users with a decision they cannot make 
because lack of knowledge. I explained now a dozen times why I cannot 
allow these users to deny an update because then their LaTeX can be 
broken and they are lost.
The experienced users have already all possibilities to handle LaTeX 
differently as I wrote.


I won't repeat this anymore now. Please add an appropriate sentence to 
the announcement or release notes for the experienced users that then 
will have to set "Never" in miktex for the package handling if they like 
to. But also tell them the risks of this.



I do not know how we should resolve this matter now. But, longer term,
we need someone to create a Windows installer that JUST installs LyX,
much the way the OSX installer does. As JMarc said, users on OSX seem to
manage to install a LaTeX distribution, etc, independently. Surely
Windows users can manage to do the same.


I cannot accept that you are telling me what is good for Windows users. 
I explained my decision but you are not understanding. Why don't you try 
it out yourself to see what can happen?


I would also not start a debate how to handle with LyX under Mac or 
Linux because I don't know these OSes or don't use them. Do you use 
MiKTeX? Do you use LyX under Windows? Do you know LyX Windows users who 
don't know LaTeX? So why do you state what is good for them?



It has become a serious problem the extent to which *MiKTeX* bugs now
delay LyX releases,


When did we had the last time a delay because of a bug in MiKTeX? We had 
much, much more problems in the past with ImageMagick. I had to create 
many installer builds because of this program.



LyX was never meant to be so closely integrated with a particular LaTeX
distribution, and it was a mistake to make it so.


Again, please try our LyX under windows by yourself before you continue. 
take a Win users without knowledge of LaTeX and they should use TeXLive. 
Then you'll see.
It is unacceptable that you tell me what mistakes I made. You know 
nothing about TeXLive and its problem in the past. We had many 
discussions with users and the current installer is the result. For more 
than 10 years I provide it and spent hundreds of ours in supporting 
users. I tried to fix problem, as fast as possible.


I give up now.
Uwe

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Richard Heck]

On 03/12/2018 12:44 AM, Andrew Parsloe wrote:
> On 12/03/2018 4:32 p.m., Richard Heck wrote:
>> On 03/11/2018 04:52 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>>> Am 11.03.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
>>>
 I think that's what we're doing. The basic disagreement we have is
 that
 I think adding a dialog will bring more benefit than harm.
>>> And I made clear why I am opposed to this.
>>> In the end it costs my spare time if something does not work. Users
>>> will contact me in this case. Therefore I focus on average users.
>> That is a serious mistake: to focus on "average users". But it has
>> clearly become pointless to discuss this any longer.
>>
>> If users are contacting YOU because of issues with the installer, then
>> that is the problem, as others have already said.
>>
>> I do not know how we should resolve this matter now. But, longer term,
>> we need someone to create a Windows installer that JUST installs LyX,
>> much the way the OSX installer does. As JMarc said, users on OSX seem to
>> manage to install a LaTeX distribution, etc, independently. Surely
>> Windows users can manage to do the same.
>>
>> It has become a serious problem the extent to which *MiKTeX* bugs now
>> delay LyX releases, require updated installers (two or three for every
>> minor version), and the like. And the problems of 'average users', so
>> far as I can see, are almost all due to tight integration with MiKTeX.
>> It is far from clear to me why we actively promote, and almost require,
>> on Windows, the use of a LaTeX distribution that is so unstable that
>> simply reconfiguring LyX can (apparently) break it.
>>
>> LyX was never meant to be so closely integrated with a particular LaTeX
>> distribution, and it was a mistake to make it so. I understand the
>> desire to offer a simpler installation process that gives the user a
>> fully functional LyX installation (though, since no such thing is
>> offered on any other platform, I'm a bit skeptical about how essential
>> this really is). But, at the very least, if we are going to 'integrate'
>> some LaTeX distribution into an offical LyX product, then we should make
>> it one that is stable: the LaTeX equivalent of an Ubuntu LTS release,
>> that cannot so easily be broken.
>>
>> Richard
>>
> Uwe provides two installers at present, one of which does NOT install
> MiKTeX and which could be used, if I understand right, with any LaTeX
> distribution (or at least TeXLive or MiKTeX). This is the one that
> I've always used -- mainly from using dial up until a few years ago. 
> The bundle installer was far too big to download by dial up. I used
> Uwe's installer-1 for 2.3.0 and have used 2.3.0 every day through the
> problem period without issues. Possibly the lack of problems for me is
> because I didn't use the MiKTeX console for updating MiKTeX but the
> older update program (miktex-update_admin.exe). (In fact I wasn't
> aware that there was such a thing as the console until reading about
> it in the present discussion.)

I know there are these two installers, but it was my understanding from
the present discussion that even the basic installer was affected by the
MiKTeX bugs we've been fighting. Perhaps I misunderstood, but Scott
asked a very explicit question along those lines.

If you're right, then perhaps what we need to do is simply offer the
basic installer 'officially' and not the bundle.

Richard

Re: Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Andrew Parsloe]

On 12/03/2018 4:32 p.m., Richard Heck wrote:

On 03/11/2018 04:52 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:

Am 11.03.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


I think that's what we're doing. The basic disagreement we have is that
I think adding a dialog will bring more benefit than harm.

And I made clear why I am opposed to this.
In the end it costs my spare time if something does not work. Users
will contact me in this case. Therefore I focus on average users.

That is a serious mistake: to focus on "average users". But it has
clearly become pointless to discuss this any longer.

If users are contacting YOU because of issues with the installer, then
that is the problem, as others have already said.

I do not know how we should resolve this matter now. But, longer term,
we need someone to create a Windows installer that JUST installs LyX,
much the way the OSX installer does. As JMarc said, users on OSX seem to
manage to install a LaTeX distribution, etc, independently. Surely
Windows users can manage to do the same.

It has become a serious problem the extent to which *MiKTeX* bugs now
delay LyX releases, require updated installers (two or three for every
minor version), and the like. And the problems of 'average users', so
far as I can see, are almost all due to tight integration with MiKTeX.
It is far from clear to me why we actively promote, and almost require,
on Windows, the use of a LaTeX distribution that is so unstable that
simply reconfiguring LyX can (apparently) break it.

LyX was never meant to be so closely integrated with a particular LaTeX
distribution, and it was a mistake to make it so. I understand the
desire to offer a simpler installation process that gives the user a
fully functional LyX installation (though, since no such thing is
offered on any other platform, I'm a bit skeptical about how essential
this really is). But, at the very least, if we are going to 'integrate'
some LaTeX distribution into an offical LyX product, then we should make
it one that is stable: the LaTeX equivalent of an Ubuntu LTS release,
that cannot so easily be broken.

Richard

Uwe provides two installers at present, one of which does NOT install 
MiKTeX and which could be used, if I understand right, with any LaTeX 
distribution (or at least TeXLive or MiKTeX). This is the one that I've 
always used -- mainly from using dial up until a few years ago.  The 
bundle installer was far too big to download by dial up. I used Uwe's 
installer-1 for 2.3.0 and have used 2.3.0 every day through the problem 
period without issues. Possibly the lack of problems for me is because I 
didn't use the MiKTeX console for updating MiKTeX but the older update 
program (miktex-update_admin.exe). (In fact I wasn't aware that there 
was such a thing as the console until reading about it in the present 
discussion.)


Andrew

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Windows Installer: Future Issues

[Richard Heck]

On 03/11/2018 04:52 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 11.03.2018 um 18:12 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
>
>> I think that's what we're doing. The basic disagreement we have is that
>> I think adding a dialog will bring more benefit than harm.
>
> And I made clear why I am opposed to this.
> In the end it costs my spare time if something does not work. Users
> will contact me in this case. Therefore I focus on average users. 

That is a serious mistake: to focus on "average users". But it has
clearly become pointless to discuss this any longer.

If users are contacting YOU because of issues with the installer, then
that is the problem, as others have already said.

I do not know how we should resolve this matter now. But, longer term,
we need someone to create a Windows installer that JUST installs LyX,
much the way the OSX installer does. As JMarc said, users on OSX seem to
manage to install a LaTeX distribution, etc, independently. Surely
Windows users can manage to do the same.

It has become a serious problem the extent to which *MiKTeX* bugs now
delay LyX releases, require updated installers (two or three for every
minor version), and the like. And the problems of 'average users', so
far as I can see, are almost all due to tight integration with MiKTeX.
It is far from clear to me why we actively promote, and almost require,
on Windows, the use of a LaTeX distribution that is so unstable that
simply reconfiguring LyX can (apparently) break it.

LyX was never meant to be so closely integrated with a particular LaTeX
distribution, and it was a mistake to make it so. I understand the
desire to offer a simpler installation process that gives the user a
fully functional LyX installation (though, since no such thing is
offered on any other platform, I'm a bit skeptical about how essential
this really is). But, at the very least, if we are going to 'integrate'
some LaTeX distribution into an offical LyX product, then we should make
it one that is stable: the LaTeX equivalent of an Ubuntu LTS release,
that cannot so easily be broken.

Richard