Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/22/2018 07:10 AM, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> Average user can misunderstand it with a probability of 50%. Those who
> misunderstood it and denied the update can end up with an unusable LyX.
 No, they do not. If they deny, then NOTHING HAPPENS.
>>> Damn, that is not true! 
>> I am saying something very simple, and it clearly is true, so please
>> read this carefully.
> As far as I could understand Uwe's point, "something happens if MiKTeX is not 
> updated", so in his view canceling initial dialog is breaking existing 
> install (due to future's internal MiKTeX update), though technically nothing 
> will happen from LyX installer side.

That is what I previously thought Uwe was saying. But if so, then MiKTeX
can be broken in the same way even if the user *doesn't* try to install
2.3.0. The problem is triggered by the reconfiguration that is forced
when 2.3.0 is installed, and of course the user might reconfigure for
other reasons and so get the partial update that breaks MiKTeX. But
that, it seems to me, is not something we should "silently" try to fix
when someone does decide to install 2.3.0. This kind of problem really
is not our bug. I don't have a problem with the idea of offering the
update as an option to people---for some users, that makes a lot of
sense---but, as we agree, we have to inform people what we are doing.
See below.

> If Uwe can't make any compromise and make small courtesy for more advanced 
> users in the initial dialog then it seems better to me to use less advanced 
> installer which Riki tries to build now and put it as the official one on the 
> web.

For what it's worth, the installer I've built is the same as Uwe's
except that (a) it's compiled with mingw and (b) it does not include the
"update MiKTeX" code (which was marked for removal in 2.3.1 anyway). It
would be trivial to add the kind of dialog we have been talking about
and re-activate that code. I've been thinking about doing that. My main
worry is getting it translated properly, which would take time.

Riki

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Pavel Sanda]

Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> >>> Average user can misunderstand it with a probability of 50%. Those who
> >>> misunderstood it and denied the update can end up with an unusable LyX.
> >>
> >> No, they do not. If they deny, then NOTHING HAPPENS.
> >
> > Damn, that is not true! 
> 
> I am saying something very simple, and it clearly is true, so please
> read this carefully.

As far as I could understand Uwe's point, "something happens if MiKTeX is not 
updated",
so in his view canceling initial dialog is breaking existing install (due to 
future's
internal MiKTeX update), though technically nothing will happen from LyX 
installer side.

The breaking point really is his insistance that users shouldn't know what 
LaTeX means
and therefore no initial dialog being possible.

In no way I do belive that it's possible to reasonably work with LyX without 
knowing
anything about LaTeX, since one will be done in the first compilation error or 
when
tweaking something in output is necessary (how many of your documents ended 
without
single ERT or document header? -- just look at flagship manuals.).
Thus I also do not agree that we should sacrifice users who know what MiKTeX to 
those
who do not, because these will never make majority of our users.

It's kind of new philosophy, that anyone who knows what 'LaTeX' means should be
considered 5% 'expert' minority in LyX userbase and should be treated at the
expense of those who know do not know.
Nevertheles I agree with Uwe that in a normal world users indeed do not care 
about
software internals and let develepers to 'serve' them. What was somehow missing
in that picture was that in normal world this is not religious service but it 
it 
brings back the profit which in turn allows the developers to spend full-time 
to 
fix all the user troubles.

Our model is different - we survive not through money but through flow of 
advanced
users who might later become devs in their spare time. In such case it's kind 
of suicidal
for LyX itself to change the philosophy and treat them as a second class 
citizens, really.

Triggering unconfirmed setup updates in their software install is something 
which
advanced users indeed can fix but but it can be huge PITA when they are in the 
middle
of production work, can make them quite angry and decent software should not do 
it.

As mentioned earlier Windows 10 indeed did forced updates, what was not somehow
mentioned was the following uproar in the community, millions dolar lawsuits and
finally Microsoft pledges that they won't do it again.


To sum up no one believes that forced upgrades is a good thing to do (including
the cited Windows case or even the MiKTeX developer). 
If Uwe can't make any compromise and make small courtesy for more advanced users
in the initial dialog then it seems better to me to use less advanced installer
which Riki tries to build now and put it as the official one on the web.

Pavel

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 21/05/2018 à 23:46, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :

 > As JMarc mentioned, he uses Windows all the time


Full disclosure: I would not say "all the time", but regularly.

JMarc knows how to act if e.g. MiKTeX 32 bit was installed as admin and 
MiKTeX 64bit over it only with user privileges? This would be fine, 
because I don't want to be the only one taking care of the installer.


This might be why we should try to "help" too much users and install 
stuff on top of their stuff. Keep it Simple.


Aha. But because the 5 % expert users don't read announcements I should 
bother 95 % of the users with a message they won't understand and when 
they therefore make a false decision they end up with an unusable LyX?


Come on. These 'canonical' users are able to understand your own scary 
dialog


  Now the installer of the LaTeX-distribution MiKTeX will be launched.
  To install the program press the Next-button in the installer windows 
until the installation

   begins.

   !!! Please use all default options of the MiKTeX-installer !!!'

And they press Next as instructed until installation finished ! I do not 
see why they would become confused by a much simpler message.


Seriously, I would not qualify the user experience of installing the 
bundle installer as easy for novice and easily scared users. I am no 
blaming you for that, writing installers is tough. But do not 
overestimate the effect of a small dialog on top of what is already there.


What? Really? If this is your opinion, I am out. I never treated users 
like this. I tried to respect users, I spent hours to help users because 
I know how it is if you e.g. prepared you master's thesis and during the 
fine-tuning for the layout you end up with a broken LyX. Then you panic. 


Then you wonder why you rely on a LaTeX distribution that only install 
packages when you need them. The TeXlive approach would have avoided that.


JMarc

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Joel Kulesza]

On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Richard Kimberly Heck 
wrote:

> On 05/21/2018 05:46 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > Am 14.05.2018 um 04:11 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck:
> >
> >> Even *the MikTeX maintainer* has made it clear that we should not
> >> update MikTeX without asking permission from the user.
> >
> > Where has he stated this?
>
> He said so in an email to Scott. Which Scott mentioned in an email to
> you. And which Joel, or someone else, then mentioned again, directly
> asking you about it.
>

I believe it was someone else—I don't recall raising this point to anyone
nor do I have an informed technical opinion on the issue at hand.

Regardless, the first concrete point I found in this regard is in an April
4 email from Scott where Scott notes:

I just received an
email from Christian Schenk, the developer of MiKTeX, in which he says
that a MiKTeX update can break compilation of documents, and that an
update of MiKTeX should not be done without a warning. He says that only
if the user agrees it is OK to update MiKTeX.


I suspect this is what Riki is referring to.

- Joel

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/21/2018 05:46 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 14.05.2018 um 04:11 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck:
>
>> Even *the MikTeX maintainer* has made it clear that we should not
>> update MikTeX without asking permission from the user.
>
> Where has he stated this? 

He said so in an email to Scott. Which Scott mentioned in an email to
you. And which Joel, or someone else, then mentioned again, directly
asking you about it.

>>> Average user can misunderstand it with a probability of 50%. Those who
>>> misunderstood it and denied the update can end up with an unusable LyX.
>>
>> No, they do not. If they deny, then NOTHING HAPPENS.
>
> Damn, that is not true! 

I am saying something very simple, and it clearly is true, so please
read this carefully.

If (i) you launch the installer, and (ii) the very first thing that
happens is that there is a dialog telling you that, as part of
installing LyX 2.3.0, we will need to update MiKTeX, and (iii) the user
is given the choice either to proceed (in which case MiKTeX is updated)
or to cancel (in which case the installer exits), then, if the user
chooses to cancel, their installation of LyX and MiKTeX are not modified
in any way. I.e., it is just as if they launched the installer, and
chose "Cancel" when the licensing info was displayed. No changes are
made to their system, and there is no way that anything can be broken.

That is what was being proposed, and it is what I was discussing.

It seems to me that you think we were proposing to give the user the
option to install LyX 2.3.0 without also updating MiKTeX. I have seen
that there was code, at one time, in the NSIS files, that would have
asked the user whether they wanted to update MiKTeX *after* all the rest
of the installation had been done, i.e., when we are about to run
configure.py. I fully understand how that could cause problems. And if
that is what you think I was suggesting, then I can see why you would
think that a lot of what I said made no sense. But that is not what was
being proposed. What was being proposed is what is above.

Riki

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 14.05.2018 um 04:11 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck:


The ONLY question at the moment is
about a warning
dialog at the outset:


Yes. and i made clear why I won't take the responsibility to do this. 
You try to please the, let's say 5 % of our expert users who might have 
some reasons not to update MiKTeX. But as i told you, these people can 
already do this and the installer already respects their decision.


> As JMarc mentioned, he uses Windows all the time

JMarc knows how to act if e.g. MiKTeX 32 bit was installed as admin and 
MiKTeX 64bit over it only with user privileges? This would be fine, 
because I don't want to be the only one taking care of the installer.



I understand that you think this would confuse 'ordinary users'. But
even if you are
right, then (a) we can figure out some way to help them and (b) that is
out-weighed
by the fact that updating MikTeX can cause serious problems for some
users. That is
the 'harm' we've been talking about. Breaking people's systems is not a
triival matter,


Sorry, but exactly sentences like these make me angry. Updating the 
package handling system does not break peoples system! I hate to hear 
such claims. During the last 2 months where the installer is online more 
than 1000 users downloaded and most probably used it. Did you hear 
something that it broke their system? I only got feedback that it was 
broken during the usage of LyX and whenever I sent them my installer 
they could repair their system.



as I have José, and many others have said. Even *the MikTeX maintainer*
has made it clear that we should not update MikTeX without asking permission 
from
the user.


Where has he stated this? Why did he not stated this to me? However i 
spent much, much time and more many users there is no other reason than 
to update MiKTeX. So why should we offer them to deny this? This makes 
no sense.



Why is my proposal not taken into account: Not having MiKTeX updated
is an expert thing. Therefore only experts should be bothered with
this. experts can read the announcement.


Because no one reads ANNOUNCE, even expert users. And by the time the
update is done, the damage is done.


Aha. But because the 5 % expert users don't read announcements I should 
bother 95 % of the users with a message they won't understand and when 
they therefore make a false decision they end up with an unusable LyX?



Average user can misunderstand it with a probability of 50%. Those who
misunderstood it and denied the update can end up with an unusable LyX.


No, they do not. If they deny, then NOTHING HAPPENS.


Damn, that is not true! Or why do you think I am so insisting here? I 
got reports about this, I could verify the problems and that is why I 
got active.
If they don't update and later on trigger the update or new installation 
of a package they end up with a completely broken LyX/LaTeX. Therefore 
we cannot allow that nothing happens.


> I also understand that there are other things that could happen, that
have nothing to do with the LyX installer, that would break people's 
MikTeX installations. That is unfortunate, but not our problem


Sorry again, but this is so arrogant! Reading statements like this make 
me really wonder if I should stay with LyX. In my world people are 
users. They just use programs. Nobody cares what is going on behind the 
scenes. Either LyX works or not. If not they will look for another 
program. There are plenty of alternatives on the market for free too. So 
either the installer takes care that LyX will work under all 
circumstances or people won't use it. They will write in forums that LyX 
is crap or similar and we loose users. Because again, users just use. Or 
do you really expect users to learn that LyX bases on other program? 
)LibreOffice does too and recently I used it almost daily. I don't know 
anything about its background (how the spell checker works, how images 
are input etc.).)


> then there are users whose MiKTeX will never get updated, and
then their systems will be broken. Maybe so. But that, again, is not our 
problem.


What? Really? If this is your opinion, I am out. I never treated users 
like this. I tried to respect users, I spent hours to help users because 
I know how it is if you e.g. prepared you master's thesis and during the 
fine-tuning for the layout you end up with a broken LyX. Then you panic. 
And when will most users trigger package updates or new package 
installation? - during the final layout process. Your professor e.g. 
requires TOCs for every chapter or whatever. So you insert the 
corresponding code and this will trigger in the background the 
installation of a new package. And those who installed MiKTeX in the 
months around September 2017 - January 2018 will then end up with a 
completely unusably LyX.
Leaving users lost like this despite I know how to prevent this is not 
what I am standing for. So if this is LyX's new policy, I will quit.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/13/2018 01:34 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 12.05.2018 um 05:13 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck:
>>> Please make your decision and tell me.
>>
>> Others can speak up if they wish, but I believe we have made ourselves
>> clear. We will not release an official Windows installer that updates
>> people's MikTeX installations without asking their permission.
>
> OK, this was clear since about 2 months. Why haven't we discussed at
> all? I made some arguments, see below and haven't heard a good reason
> against them. 

We discussed it endlessly. You gave your reasons, we gave ours, and we
seem to be
at a stalemate.

> It is also interesting that non-Win developers state they have better
> arguments without contesting the arguments from the Win developer.

As JMarc mentioned, he uses Windows all the time, and yet he agrees with
the rest
of the development team. I used Windows for years before switching to
Linux, and
I've installed Windows 10 both in a virtual machine and separately just
to be able to
check out these kinds of issues (as well as to explore Windows-specific
bugs). There
are tons of users who have now expressed their opinions on this. Do none
of us count?
Why not?

I am sorry that the relevant issues here have gotten mixed up with more
general issues
about the Windows installer. As I said, I (and I think many others)
wonder about whether
it is a good idea to try to package all of LyX's dependencies the way
you are. I am sorry
that my use of the English idiom "I wonder whether it's wise..." misled
you. That simply
means: I wonder whether it's the best course It's a very ordinary
phrase.

But that's not what's at issue now. The ONLY question at the moment is
about a warning
dialog at the outset: One that would tell users that the installer will
update MikTeX,
direct them to a wiki page with more information, and give them the
opportunity to
cancel. That's it. No one is suggesting that you should change the
installer in any other
way, and if I manage to build the installer myself, then that is exactly
what it would be
like: The same as yours, with that dialog.

I understand that you think this would confuse 'ordinary users'. But
even if you are
right, and it seems to me that you are underestimating the intelligence
of 'ordinary
users', then (a) we can figure out some way to help them and (b) that is
out-weighed
by the fact that updating MikTeX can cause serious problems for some
users. That is
the 'harm' we've been talking about. Breaking people's systems is not a
trivial matter,
as José and many others have said.

> Average user can misunderstand it with a probability of 50%. Those who
> misunderstood it and denied the update can end up with an unusable LyX.

I think this is the issue that most matters.

As I see it, this **cannot happen**. If the user cancels the install,
then NOTHING
HAPPENS. The proposal I and others have been making is that we have a dialog
*at the very beginning*. If the user cancels, then NOTHING HAPPENS. Their
system is left exactly the same as if they had never run the installer
at all. There
is therefore no possible way that running the installer and denying can
have a
bad effect. It's a NO-OP if the user cancels.

I also understand that there are other things that could happen, that
have nothing
to do with the LyX installer, that would break people's MikTeX
installations. That
is unfortunate, but not our problem, and not something for which we
should risk
breaking other users' installations.

It seems to me that your worry is that, if we don't update MikTeX on the
update
to 2.3.0, then there are users whose MikTeX will never get updated, and
then their
systems will be broken. Maybe so. But that, again, is not our problem.
It's a bug in
MikTeX that causes this, and the problem should be fixed there. I know
that we
sometimes 'work around' bugs in other programs, but not when it will
break stuff
for other users. Even if, as 'experts', they can (maybe) fix it.

>> If you refuse to include such a dialog, then I guess you should build
>> your installer separately.
>
> I refuse because this doesn't fit with Windows behavior as a service.
> [...] So I will now set up a new OpenSource project besides LyX for
> the installer.

OK. But please do not expect this *fork* to be advertised on the LyX
download
page once we have a new installer. Especially since, after not very
long, this whole
update issue will cease to be an issue.

> Since Windows changes e.g. registry things, programs like MiKTeX must
> change the way they work from time to time - if they like it or not.
> So must do LyX! 

Even *the MikTeX maintainer* has made it clear that we should not update
MikTeX without asking permission from the user. Isn't that good enough?

Riki

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/13/2018 01:34 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 12.05.2018 um 05:13 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck:
>>> Please make your decision and tell me.
>>
>> Others can speak up if they wish, but I believe we have made ourselves
>> clear. We will not release an official Windows installer that updates
>> people's MikTeX installations without asking their permission.
>
> OK, this was clear since about 2 months. Why haven't we discussed at
> all? I made some arguments, see below and haven't heard a good reason
> against them. 

We discussed it endlessly. You gave your reasons, we gave ours, and we
seem to be
at a stalemate.

> It is also interesting that non-Win developers state they have better
> arguments without contesting the arguments from the Win developer.

As JMarc mentioned, he uses Windows all the time, and yet he agrees with
the rest
of the development team. I used Windows for years before switching to
Linux, and
I've installed Windows 10 both in a virtual machine and separately just
to be able to
check out these kinds of issues (as well as to explore Windows-specific
bugs). There
are tons of users who have now expressed their opinions on this. Do none
of us count?
Why not?

I am sorry that the relevant issues here have gotten mixed up with more
general issues
about the Windows installer. As I said, I (and I think many others)
wonder about whether
it is a good idea to try to package all of LyX's dependencies the way
you are. I am sorry
that my use of the English idiom "I wonder whether it's wise..." misled
you. That simply
means: I wonder whether it's the best course It's a very ordinary
phrase.

But that's not what's at issue now. The ONLY question at the moment is
about a warning
dialog at the outset: One that would tell users that the installer will
update MikTeX,
direct them to a wiki page with more information, and give them the
opportunity to
cancel. That's it. No one is suggesting that you should change the
installer in any other
way, and if I manage to build the installer myself, then that is exactly
what it would be
like: The same as yours, with that dialog.

I understand that you think this would confuse 'ordinary users'. But
even if you are
right, then (a) we can figure out some way to help them and (b) that is
out-weighed
by the fact that updating MikTeX can cause serious problems for some
users. That is
the 'harm' we've been talking about. Breaking people's systems is not a
triival matter,
as I have José, and many others have said. Even *the MikTeX maintainer*
has made
it clear that we should not update MikTeX without asking permission from
the user.
Isn't that good enough?

>> where Jim Rockford suggests "a simple warning message" as a solution,
>> exactly what we have been suggesting all along.
>
> Why is my proposal not taken into account: Not having MiKTeX updated
> is an expert thing. Therefore only experts should be bothered with
> this. experts can read the announcement. 

Because no one reads ANNOUNCE, even expert users. And by the time the
update is done, the damage is done.

> Average user can misunderstand it with a probability of 50%. Those who
> misunderstood it and denied the update can end up with an unusable LyX.

No, they do not. If they deny, then NOTHING HAPPENS. The proposal is
that we give
this dialog at the very beginning, and if the user cancels, then NOTHING
HAPPENS.
Their system is left exactly the same as if they had never run the
installer at all. There
is therefore no possible way that running the installer and denying can
have a bad effect.
It's a NO-OP.

>
>> If you refuse to include such a dialog, then I guess you should build
>> your installer separately.
>
> I refuse because this doesn't fit with Windows behavior as a service.
> Windows will bring you every half a year new features and change
> settings and registry entries. If you don't like this you cannot use
> Windows. Since Windows changes e.g. registry things, programs like
> MiKTeX must change the way they work from time to time - if they like
> it or not. So must do LyX!
> But you think you can do different. Then start your Win 10 with the
> recent update that came out few days ago and try if you can work with
> MiKTeX and its old package management.
>
> I think it is senseless to discuss any longer since I can argue
> whatever I want and you will insist on your opinion you had from the
> first day on.
>
> So I will now set up a new OpenSource project besides LyX for the
> installer.
>
> regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/13/2018 01:34 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 12.05.2018 um 05:13 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck:
>>> Please make your decision and tell me.
>>
>> Others can speak up if they wish, but I believe we have made ourselves
>> clear. We will not release an official Windows installer that updates
>> people's MikTeX installations without asking their permission.
>
> OK, this was clear since about 2 months. Why haven't we discussed at
> all? I made some arguments, see below and haven't heard a good reason
> against them. 

We discussed it endlessly. You gave your reasons, we gave ours, and we
seem to be
at a stalemate.

> It is also interesting that non-Win developers state they have better
> arguments without contesting the arguments from the Win developer.

As JMarc mentioned, he uses Windows all the time, and yet he agrees with
the rest
of the development team. I used Windows for years before switching to
Linux, and
I've installed Windows 10 both in a virtual machine and separately just
to be able to
check out these kinds of issues (as well as to explore Windows-specific
bugs). There
are tons of users who have now expressed their opinions on this. Do none
of us count?
Why not?

I am sorry that the relevant issues here have gotten mixed up with more
general issues
about the Windows installer. As I said, I (and I think many others)
wonder about whether
it is a good idea to try to package all of LyX's dependencies the way
you are. I am sorry
that my use of the English idiom "I wonder whether it's wise..." misled
you. That simply
means: I wonder whether it's the best course It's a very ordinary
phrase.

But that's not what's at issue now. The ONLY question at the moment is
about a warning
dialog at the outset: One that would tell users that the installer will
update MikTeX,
direct them to a wiki page with more information, and give them the
opportunity to
cancel. That's it. No one is suggesting that you should change the
installer in any other
way, and if I manage to build the installer myself, then that is exactly
what it would be
like: The same as yours, with that dialog.

I understand that you think this would confuse 'ordinary users'. But
even if you are
right, then (a) we can figure out some way to help them and (b) that is
out-weighed
by the fact that updating MikTeX can cause serious problems for some
users. That is
the 'harm' we've been talking about. Breaking people's systems is not a
triival matter,
as I have José, and many others have said. Even *the MikTeX maintainer*
has made
it clear that we should not update MikTeX without asking permission from
the user.
Isn't that good enough?

>> where Jim Rockford suggests "a simple warning message" as a solution,
>> exactly what we have been suggesting all along.
>
> Why is my proposal not taken into account: Not having MiKTeX updated
> is an expert thing. Therefore only experts should be bothered with
> this. experts can read the announcement. 

Because no one reads ANNOUNCE, even expert users. And by the time the
update is done, the damage is done.

> Average user can misunderstand it with a probability of 50%. Those who
> misunderstood it and denied the update can end up with an unusable LyX.

No, they do not. If they deny, then NOTHING HAPPENS. The proposal is
that we give
this dialog at the very beginning, and if the user cancels, then NOTHING
HAPPENS.
Their system is left exactly the same as if they had never run the
installer at all. There
is therefore no possible way that running the installer and denying can
have a bad effect.
It's a NO-OP.

>
>> If you refuse to include such a dialog, then I guess you should build
>> your installer separately.
>
> I refuse because this doesn't fit with Windows behavior as a service.
> Windows will bring you every half a year new features and change
> settings and registry entries. If you don't like this you cannot use
> Windows. Since Windows changes e.g. registry things, programs like
> MiKTeX must change the way they work from time to time - if they like
> it or not. So must do LyX!
> But you think you can do different. Then start your Win 10 with the
> recent update that came out few days ago and try if you can work with
> MiKTeX and its old package management.
>
> I think it is senseless to discuss any longer since I can argue
> whatever I want and you will insist on your opinion you had from the
> first day on.
>
> So I will now set up a new OpenSource project besides LyX for the
> installer.
>
> regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 12.05.2018 um 05:13 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck:


No, I may wish to make use of it. I am in the process of figuring out
how to build the Windows installer myself, as you suggested. The code
belongs to LyX, not to you.


I never said that it belongs to me.


Please make your decision and tell me.


Others can speak up if they wish, but I believe we have made ourselves
clear. We will not release an official Windows installer that updates
people's MikTeX installations without asking their permission.


OK, this was clear since about 2 months. Why haven't we discussed at 
all? I made some arguments, see below and haven't heard a good reason 
against them. It is also interesting that non-Win developers state they 
have better arguments without contesting the arguments from the Win 
developer.



understand that you think Windows users would be confused by a simple
dialog asking their permission to update MikTeX.


I explained a dozen times why, and again below.


I have spoken to
several Windows users over the last few days who think otherwise. For a
public example, see
     https://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-users@lists.lyx.org/msg107175.html


That doesn't help much. Jim know what MiKTeX is, my mother not. Jim will 
do the right thing in the dialog, my mother maybe not. Jim can google in 
our mailing list to find a solution, my mother not. So what people do we 
need to take care of the most - users like my mother. users like jim 
will find their way no matter if there is a dialog.



where Jim Rockford suggests "a simple warning message" as a solution,
exactly what we have been suggesting all along.


Why is my proposal not taken into account: Not having MiKTeX updated is 
an expert thing. Therefore only experts should be bothered with this. 
experts can read the announcement. Average user can misunderstand it 
with a probability of 50%. Those who misunderstood it and denied the 
update can end up with an unusable LyX. Therefore I am against such a 
dialog.



If you refuse to include such a dialog, then I guess you should build
your installer separately.


I refuse because this doesn't fit with Windows behavior as a service. 
Windows will bring you every half a year new features and change 
settings and registry entries. If you don't like this you cannot use 
Windows. Since Windows changes e.g. registry things, programs like 
MiKTeX must change the way they work from time to time - if they like it 
or not. So must do LyX!
But you think you can do different. Then start your Win 10 with the 
recent update that came out few days ago and try if you can work with 
MiKTeX and its old package management.


I think it is senseless to discuss any longer since I can argue whatever 
I want and you will insist on your opinion you had from the first day on.


So I will now set up a new OpenSource project besides LyX for the installer.

regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[José Abílio Matos]

On Saturday, 12 May 2018 04.13.02 WEST Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> I understand that you think Windows users would be confused by a simple
> dialog asking their permission to update MikTeX. I have spoken to
> several Windows users over the last few days who think otherwise. For a
> public example, see
> https://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-users@lists.lyx.org/msg107175.html
> where Jim Rockford suggests "a simple warning message" as a solution,
> exactly what we have been suggesting all along. I've had several other
> people ask the same question.

I want to stress that, for us the latex installation is a major piece of 
software. If we 
are going to upgrade it in the process of installing lyx then we should warn 
the user. 
That does not depend on whether it is windows or not, that would be true for 
any 
other OS.

-- 
José Abílio

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 05/11/2018 10:20 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>
> _Should I remove the Win installer code from LyX's git?_

No, I may wish to make use of it. I am in the process of figuring out
how to build the Windows installer myself, as you suggested. The code
belongs to LyX, not to you.

> If yes, I'll release installer builds as I did the last years.
> If no, I'll create a new Github project and LyX won't have an
> "official" Win installer but refer to external LyX win installer.
>
> Please make your decision and tell me.

Others can speak up if they wish, but I believe we have made ourselves
clear. We will not release an official Windows installer that updates
people's MikTeX installations without asking their permission. I
understand that you think Windows users would be confused by a simple
dialog asking their permission to update MikTeX. I have spoken to
several Windows users over the last few days who think otherwise. For a
public example, see
    https://www.mail-archive.com/lyx-users@lists.lyx.org/msg107175.html
where Jim Rockford suggests "a simple warning message" as a solution,
exactly what we have been suggesting all along. I've had several other
people ask the same question.

If you refuse to include such a dialog, then I guess you should build
your installer separately. We'll be happy to direct users to it until we
have a new official installer.

Riki

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 07.04.2018 um 00:48 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck:


installer that is as automatic as it can be. Many of the rest of us have
real doubts about the wisdom of this,


That is what annoys me. You doubt that I am wise enough to set up LyX
for Windows users.


First of all, I specifically said that THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE WE ARE
DISCUSSING.


This IS the issue for me because you state my solution does harm users 
and it is not wise. Fine, then dive into the Windows ocean and propose a 
new/better Win installer that acts wisely.



What I doubt is that it is a good idea for one
person (you) to try all by yourself to manage a large collection of
complex programs and their interactions and dependencies.


The installer code in in our Git. Everybody can contribute to it and I 
hoped that I won't be the only contributor.
That the installer works as it does is the result of about 10 years of 
development, many, many discussions. So please don't come up now with 
doubts that its concept is not wise. Se also my other mail from today.



That leads inevitably to the kinds of
problems we have here,
to multiple versions of the installer in response to bugs in programs we
do not control, and so on and so forth.


LyX needs many third party programs. For the user it is irrelevant if he 
cannot use LyX because of a problem with python, Ghostscript, Perl, 
MiKTeX, NSIS or ImageMagick. He only sees the result: LyX is not working 
well for me. Therefore the lyX Win installer must take care of the 
dependencies. This is the conclusion of 10 years LyX Win installer.

So let's face the reality and act accordingly.


As JMarc pointed out, the very example you give:


It is wrong to say, LyX is not allowed to update MiKTeX because of
potential bugs on CTAN. I mean with this directive on Linux they cannot upgrade 
e.g. my
Qt5 from e.g. 5.6 to 5.9 because there could be a regression bug in Qt5.9 that 
would
affect all apps using Qt5.


just makes this point. People can do these kinds of upgrades if they
like, but a stable distro
like Debian or Ubuntu LTS...


Again, we must face the reality! Win 10 is a service. If you like it or 
not, you will be upgraded to current Win 10 builds. The same is with 
MiKTeX. As soon as you upgrade you need the new package handling system 
to be able to get bugfixes in future. Moreover, MiKTeX cannot stand 
still because some new Win 10 features/settings require a changed 
MiKTeX. Imagine people got their Win 10 upgrade and cannot use MiKTeX 
any longer. (The MiKTeX developer is for good reason in the Windows 
early tester program.) Therefore I don't understand the whole discussion 
why an upgrade to the new MiKTeX package handling could be harmful.
So your Linux-centric view doesn't help us for LyX on Windows. Windows 
is the market leader and we have to accept that the Windows world works 
in some respects even fundamentally different than the Linux world.


(Besides this, popular Linux like e.g. Manjaro upgrade permanently e.g. 
Qt. If I like it or not, I cannot prevent this.)



So my final question still stands:

_Should I remove the Win installer code from LyX's git?_

If yes, I'll release installer builds as I di the last years.
If no, I'll create a new Github project and LyX won't have an "official" 
Win installer but refer to external LyX win installer.


Please make your decision and tell me.

many thanks and regards
Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 07.04.2018 um 00:40 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck:


If MiKTeX can be broken some other
way, that's a bug in MiKTeX and not one we should be trying to fix via
the LyX installer.


That is the fundamental difference between my and your approach. I see 
the user perspective. And for the user it is irrelevnat what causes his 
problems. For him it is important to get a working system without the 
need to learn about background things.

Users just want to use.

I as developer know the background and can act to assure the users will 
get in every case a working LyX/LaTeX setup. I spent a lot of time in 
developing a proper solution and will provide this via the installer.


The Win installer worked since its first days that way that it took care 
about third-party components. In the past it contained many times 
special code to workaround bugs in third-party programs that could later 
be removed. So this case it not different.



On the question at issue.
Do people really read release announcements?


Average users of course not. They also don't read dialogs, especially 
long ones with lots of special words. But average users are the majority 
(assuming we have a Gaussian distribution).
The Win installer therefore focuses on average users because they would 
be lost if their MiKTeX/LaTeX is broken. Experienced users know what to 
do, can read the announcement, google in forums etc.



My real problemm, though, is that I simply do not understand why we
can't have a dialog at the very beginning of the installation process
that says something like this:


I explained this now for sure more than 10 times.


Do you honestly think that is too confusing for average users?


Yes, definitely.


First, Do No Harm [1].


Well, that you state my solution would harm is what shock me. No, it 
does not harm and I explained not.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 11:01:00AM +, racoon wrote:
> On 06.04.2018 11:18, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Le 06/04/2018 à 00:40, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :
> > > Am 05.04.2018 um 04:47 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> > > 
> > > > In my opinion it is that important, because updating LyX could break
> > > > something else on a user's computer.
> > > 
> > > No! Why do you claim this again? Don't mix potential bugs in a LaTeX
> > > package on CTAN with LyX. With this argumentation every package
> > > update could introduce bugs. LyX is not responsible for bugs on
> > > CTAN.
> > 
> > Aren't we discussing bugs in miktex here? CTAN is a different beast,
> > although living on the bleeding edge is probably a bad decision for
> > "average" users.
> 
> Yet another attempt to clarify a bit (maybe just for me):

I think you have a good idea of breaking down the issue. If we discuss
everything as a whole, we seem to be going into circles. We need to
identify the fundamental disagreements and discuss them separately (I
propose separate email threads).

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Jean-Pierre Chrétien]

Posted this on 08/04/2018 13:36, seems that it did not find its path to 
lyx-devel over the week-end stale of the list manager.


Le 05/04/2018 à 04:47, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :

[.snip.]

I just received an
email from Christian Schenk, the developer of MiKTeX, in which he says
that a MiKTeX update can break compilation of documents, and that an
update of MiKTeX should not be done without a warning. He says that only
if the user agrees it is OK to update MiKTeX. 


Hello Uwe,

You did not comment this paragraph in your answer to Scott's post.
How does Christian Schenk advice fits in with your position about the need of a 
warning at the beginning of the install process ?


--
Regards
Jean-Pierre

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 09:18:54AM +, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Le 06/04/2018 à 00:40, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :
> > Am 05.04.2018 um 04:47 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> > 
> > > In my opinion it is that important, because updating LyX could break
> > > something else on a user's computer.
> > 
> > No! Why do you claim this again? Don't mix potential bugs in a LaTeX
> > package on CTAN with LyX. With this argumentation every package update
> > could introduce bugs. LyX is not responsible for bugs on CTAN.
> 
> Aren't we discussing bugs in miktex here? CTAN is a different beast,
> although living on the bleeding edge is probably a bad decision for
> "average" users.

I'm thinking about any bug that could be exposed to the user after a
MiKTeX update, whether that comes from MiKTeX itself or if it comes from
MiKTeX updating other packages. If LyX causes an update of a LaTeX
package without asking the user, then my opinion is that LyX would be
responsible for any bug or change in behavior that the package comes
with. That's exactly why I think LyX should not cause such an update
without asking the user.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 10:40:32PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 05.04.2018 um 04:47 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:

> Again, the MiKTeX update doesn't break anything, see above and we spoke
> about this now a dozen times.

Would you be open to just one more round of discussing this? We could
start a separate email thread and keep it focused on this topic. If we
keep mixing topics then we start going in circles. If we just focus on
one specific issue, I think we can make progress.

> It annoyed me that I had to explain what I mean with "average users". You
> already had you experienced with unexperienced users under Windows. So you
> should understand why I decided in favor of average users and sorted the
> info for the experts out to the release announcement.

I do not like this logic. Basically you are saying to me either "you
have no experience in which case your opinion is not worth anything", or
"you have experience so you should agree with me". It's not possible for
me to both have experience and to diagree?

> Finally, please tell me why it is not sufficient that expert users can read
> the release announcement to make certain MiKTeX settings if they like before
> they use the Win installer and why we should instead bother average users
> with a question that they cannot understand instead and risk that these
> average users will end up with an completely broken MiKTeX if they made the
> wrong decision in the dialog they could not understand?!
> Unless I get no sensible answer to this I won't debate any longer.

I don't think that the average user reads the release notes, and in my
opinion, the risk to the average user comes from not having a dialog, as
I explained my opinion here [1].

> > Working towards an official Windows binary is very important to me.
> 
> What has the installer to do with the binary of LyX? The compilation of the
> lyx.exe doesn't include the Win installer. If you doesn't like to have the
> installer code in our git repository, I will remove it, no problem. Then you
> cannot claim that the installer behavior is a LyX thing. The more I think
> about it, this seems to be the only solution that you can focus again on
> LyX.
> So do you agee, that I remove the installer from LyX's git? If yes, you can
> release LyX as binary and the packages for the different OSes can do their
> job and we save time to debate things not directly related to LyX.
> Alternatively just change the makefile.am files that the Win installer is no
> longer included to LyX releases.

I disagree. I think the LyX installer is an important part of LyX.

Regards,

Scott


[1]
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid=20180316161313.tya2qhypktblk43d%40steph


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 10:13:04PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:

> Sure and I did not decide about LyX but about how a certain installer page
> should look to overcome a problem with a third-party program that is
> Win-only. I think I can decide this. This is no LyX issue. It is an
> additional feature I provide with the installer to also take care of
> third-party programs. You can like it or not but this is no LyX thing. If
> you think so, then I will move the installer code to Github.

I do not agree. I think that the LyX installer is an important part of
the LyX project. Do you know of any other software that separates the
binary from the installer? The only thing I can think of is something
like the separation of CTAN and e.g. TeX Live, but in my opinion that is
different.

> Then it is
> definitely no LyX thing and we can end this fruitless debate.

It is frustrating, it is a lot of time on everyone's side, but trying to
work through a conflict so that we can stay together and produce the
best possible LyX for the user is not fruitless in my opinion. I think
we must continue to try. Even though both sides seem very far apart
right now, I do not think we should give up. As racoon, proposed, I
think we just need to figure out the root issues to focus on.

In the end, I think this entire issue could be resolved by deciding on
one question: would a dialog be confusing to the average user? I still
think we can make progress on this. If you think there are more issues
than this one, let's discuss them one by one.  Perhaps we could start a
separate email thread to keep the discussions organized.

Regards,

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 04/05/2018 06:13 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 05.04.2018 um 03:02 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck:
>
>> have created an
>> installer that is as automatic as it can be. Many of the rest of us have
>> real doubts about the wisdom of this,
>
> That is what annoys me. You doubt that I am wise enough to set up LyX
> for Windows users. 

First of all, I specificially said that THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE WE ARE
DISCUSSING. I'm
not sure why you're insisting upon discussing it. But since you are: I
do not doubt that you
are wise enough to set up LyX for Windows users. And I understand
perfectly well why you
want to do things the way you want to do them. What I doubt is that it
is a good idea for one
person (you) to try all by yourself to manage a large collection of
complex programs and their
interactions and dependencies. That leads inevitably to the kinds of
problems we have here,
to multiple versions of the installer in response to bugs in programs we
do not control, and
so on and so forth. As JMarc pointed out, the very example you give:

> It is wrong to say, LyX is not allowed to update MiKTeX because of
> potential bugs on
> CTAN. I mean with this directive on Linux they cannot upgrade e.g. my
> Qt5 from e.g.
> 5.6 to 5.9 because there could be a regression bug in Qt5.9 that would
> affect all apps
> using Qt5. 

just makes this point. People can do these kinds of upgrades if they
like, but a stable distro
like Debian or Ubuntu LTS is going to be *very, very careful* before
doing such an update.
Even bleeding edge distros like Fedora do massive testing, though they
are willing to take
more risks, because Fedora users accept this kind of risk in using
Fedora rather than Debian
or whatever.

Riki

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 04/05/2018 06:40 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Finally, please tell me why it is not sufficient that expert users can
> read the release announcement to make certain MiKTeX settings if they
> like before they use the Win installer and why we should instead
> bother average users with a question that they cannot understand
> instead and risk that these average users will end up with an
> completely broken MiKTeX if they made the wrong decision in the dialog
> they could not understand?!

First, there is no way that WE can break anyone's MiKTeX if they abort
the install andwe don't do anything. If MiKTeX can be broken some other
way, that's a bug in MiKTeX and not one we should be trying to fix via
the LyX installer.

On the question at issue.

Do people really read release announcements? I would be very
uncomfortable putting anything I regarded as even slightly important
just into a release announcement. Indeed,there are always tons of
questions on lyx-users after a new release that are answered inthe
release notes. So that seems like something close to proof that hardly
anyone reads them.

My real problemm, though, is that I simply do not understand why we
can't have a dialog at the very beginning of the installation process
that says something like this:

===
Due to recent changes in MiKTeX (which LyX uses to produce PDF
output), we will need to update your system to the latest version
X.XX of MiKTeX during the installation of LyX 2.3.0. Some expert
users, in particular those who use LaTeX outside of LyX, may wish to
upgrade MiKTeX ontheir own or not do the update at this time. For
most LyX users, however, this update needs to be done anyway, so for
most users (especially those who do not use LaTeX outside LyX) it is
both safe and appropriate to proceed with the installation.

If you would like more information before continuing, please see   
http://wiki.lyx.org/LyX23OnWindows.

If you do not wish to upgrade MiKTeX at this time, then you should
cancel the installation now.Otherwise, let's go!

[CANCEL INSTALLATION]    [PROCEED WITH INSTALLATION]


Presumably, we can pop this dialog only for people who already have
MiKTeX installed but who do not have the latest version.

Do you honestly think that is too confusing for average users? Is it
really too much trouble for us to create the mentioned page and let
people make an informed decision for themselves? The page itself could
direct people to lyx-users if they still aren't sure what to do. Sure,
it's a little more work, and some people may be a bit confused for a
while. But, to me, that is the price we pay to make sure that---to
continue JMarc's medical example---we abide by the principle "Primum non
nocere": First, Do No Harm [1].

Riki

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primum_non_nocere

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[racoon]

On 06.04.2018 11:18, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:

Le 06/04/2018 à 00:40, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :

Am 05.04.2018 um 04:47 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


In my opinion it is that important, because updating LyX could break
something else on a user's computer.


No! Why do you claim this again? Don't mix potential bugs in a LaTeX 
package on CTAN with LyX. With this argumentation every package update 
could introduce bugs. LyX is not responsible for bugs on CTAN.


Aren't we discussing bugs in miktex here? CTAN is a different beast, 
although living on the bleeding edge is probably a bad decision for 
"average" users.


Yet another attempt to clarify a bit (maybe just for me):

I was hoping the discussion moved past the point discussed above. If 
not, we should first try to answer the following question:


(Q1) Does installing a new version of (or update) MiKTeX can break the 
compilation of LaTeX documents that were compiled fine before (because 
it can introduce bugs that an already installed previous version did not 
have)?


It seemed to me that there is agreement on this. Please correct me if I 
am wrong.


Only because (Q1) can be affirmed, the second question became important:

(Q2) During installation, should there be a question asking the user 
whether to update (and, alternatively), cancel the installation?


At least two principled approaches have been suggested:

First, what I call

*the consent approach*: Yes to Q2, because LyX should not do without 
consent what can break documents that compiled fine before.


If I see it correctly, this approach was applied in previous version 
where the user could decline an update of MiKTeX (though it was 
recommended to update).


Second, what I call

*the silent approach*: No to Q2, because the LyX installation should 
automatically do what is best for (most?) unexperienced users and a 
dialog could confuse them.


Now, if I see it correctly, the matter to decide the issue is one of 
importance. It's a value judgment. And there is no dominant approach 
that is better in all respects. Notice also that one can find both what 
is best for unexperienced users *and* not to break documents that 
compiled fine before valuable. It is just that one comes out on one or 
the other side because of an overall judgment, a favorable combination 
of these values.


In so far, I think no side is being stupid by overlooking an totally 
obviously better approach. If this is correct, I think it is very 
important that everyone sees this since it helps both to understand the 
other side and not to feel like others think that one is just being stupid.


Some have tried to lessen the strength of the reasons in favor of the 
silent approach by making the dialog easier to understand. If this would 
be fully successful, then the consent approach could come closer to 
being dominant in all respects. (For example, Scott is following this line.)


On the other hand, it might be possible to lessen the reason in favor of 
the consent approach, for example, if MiKTex updates almost never break 
a LaTeX system. This might be doubted given the reason the current 
problem was arrived at.


I see the following ways forward:

1. Further trying to discuss the basic values at stake and see whether 
one approach comes out - even if not in all respects - overall 
favorable. (For example, Uwe and Jean-Marc are following this approach 
by discussing analogue cases, like starting a car.)


2. Act on a set of basic principles (like a charter) the LyX development 
should follow, if there is one. Maybe there is a rule like: Never do 
anything without consent that could break the LaTeX compilation, or 
always do what is best for the unexperienced user.


3. Use some collective method of decision making common in democracies, 
like majority or two-thirds majority (among developers). And then just 
act on it together. Obviously, decision making using vetoes would not 
work at the moment.


All other alternatives I can think of are kind of sad... but maybe I 
overlooked something.


Best,
Daniel

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 06/04/2018 à 00:40, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :

Am 05.04.2018 um 04:47 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


In my opinion it is that important, because updating LyX could break
something else on a user's computer.


No! Why do you claim this again? Don't mix potential bugs in a LaTeX 
package on CTAN with LyX. With this argumentation every package update 
could introduce bugs. LyX is not responsible for bugs on CTAN.


Aren't we discussing bugs in miktex here? CTAN is a different beast, 
although living on the bleeding edge is probably a bad decision for 
"average" users.


It is wrong to say, LyX is not allowed to update MiKTeX because of 
potential bugs on CTAN. I mean with this directive on Linux they cannot 
upgrade e.g. my Qt5 from e.g. 5.6 to 5.9 because there could be a 
regression bug in Qt5.9 that would affect all apps using Qt5.


This is why Linux distributions have armies of testers, actually.

Again, the MiKTeX update doesn't break anything, see above and we spoke 
about this now a dozen times.


Finally, please tell me why it is not sufficient that expert users can 
read the release announcement to make certain MiKTeX settings if they 


I missed the proposed announcement. Where can I find it?

like before they use the Win installer and why we should instead bother 
average users with a question that they cannot understand instead and 
risk that these average users will end up with an completely broken 
MiKTeX if they made the wrong decision in the dialog they could not 
understand?!


This is what doctors thought a few years ago, at least here in France. 
Why bother to explain to people what we are going to do to them, if they 
do not understand it? Of course there are secondary effects, but they 
can cope with that!


Nowadays we have laws that require informed consent. And it is a progress.

So do you agree, that I remove the installer from LyX's git? If yes, you 
can release LyX as binary and the packages for the different OSes can do 
their job and we save time to debate things not directly related to LyX.
Alternatively just change the makefile.am files that the Win installer 
is no longer included to LyX releases.


It is impressive to see how this thing is getting out of hand. Sheesh.

JMarc

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 20/03/2018 à 03:17, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :

The probability of pressing No if you don't understand is 50%.


If the default is set to Yes, I am ready to take the bet that people 
just press Enter and that your estimation is wrong.


Besides, to take your car analogy: what if the user pushes the big green 
button and the car starts right away, passing over the dog in the 
process ? This user thought that he are just turning the motor on at 
this point. Wouldn't it be better to give a chance to get doggie out of 
the way ?


This is the car-world equivalent of what we are trying

Of course, there is the possibility that some people will not get their 
groceries for dinner, but we have to make risk/benefits analysis in such 
cases.


Concerning "expert" users (who are expected to find the release notes by 
some magic in the installer binary), where is the clear explanation on 
how to unbreak MikTeX, either on LyX website or on mikTex.org?


This is something I do not understand: there is a bug in miktex since 
December that can break installations without warning and, yet, I do not 
see a trace of a message or a new miktex version, or of a tiny script 
that people can unbreak their system.


I see 3 possibilities:
1/ Miktex is not maintained
2/ Windows users do not see that their system is not updated, and then I 
do not see the point of the system
3/ The LyX installer sets up MikTex in such a way that updates break, 
but normal users do not see a problem.


Which is the right hypothesis ? What did I miss ?

Regards,

JMarc

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 05.04.2018 um 04:47 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


In my opinion it is that important, because updating LyX could break
something else on a user's computer.


No! Why do you claim this again? Don't mix potential bugs in a LaTeX 
package on CTAN with LyX. With this argumentation every package update 
could introduce bugs. LyX is not responsible for bugs on CTAN.


Sooner or later people must update MiKTeX to be able to obtain packages. 
If expert users really want to freeze their MiKTeX, they can already do 
this in the MiKTeX settings and the LyX installer respects this.
Only experienced users know how the package handling update is done and 
even then you can get serious troubles because of bugs in some MiKTeX 
versions.
So it is the right way to force the upgrade AND to do the right update 
steps in the right order, so that independent on your MiKTeX version, 
you end up with an upgraded and working MiKTeX.


It is wrong to say, LyX is not allowed to update MiKTeX because of 
potential bugs on CTAN. I mean with this directive on Linux they cannot 
upgrade e.g. my Qt5 from e.g. 5.6 to 5.9 because there could be a 
regression bug in Qt5.9 that would affect all apps using Qt5.



I think that analogies can be useful in making points, but only if they
fit correctly. In this analogy what is the part that is analogous to a
MiKTeX update breaking something?


Again, the MiKTeX update doesn't break anything, see above and we spoke 
about this now a dozen times.


It annoyed me that I had to explain what I mean with "average users". 
You already had you experienced with unexperienced users under Windows. 
So you should understand why I decided in favor of average users and 
sorted the info for the experts out to the release announcement.


Finally, please tell me why it is not sufficient that expert users can 
read the release announcement to make certain MiKTeX settings if they 
like before they use the Win installer and why we should instead bother 
average users with a question that they cannot understand instead and 
risk that these average users will end up with an completely broken 
MiKTeX if they made the wrong decision in the dialog they could not 
understand?!

Unless I get no sensible answer to this I won't debate any longer.

Working towards an official Windows binary is very important to me. 


What has the installer to do with the binary of LyX? The compilation of 
the lyx.exe doesn't include the Win installer. If you doesn't like to 
have the installer code in our git repository, I will remove it, no 
problem. Then you cannot claim that the installer behavior is a LyX 
thing. The more I think about it, this seems to be the only solution 
that you can focus again on LyX.
So do you agee, that I remove the installer from LyX's git? If yes, you 
can release LyX as binary and the packages for the different OSes can do 
their job and we save time to debate things not directly related to LyX.
Alternatively just change the makefile.am files that the Win installer 
is no longer included to LyX releases.


thanks and regards
Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 05.04.2018 um 03:02 schrieb Richard Kimberly Heck:


It is not true that people don't trust you, and it really isn't helpful
to phrase it that way. This is not an issue of expertise, experience, or
anythinng of that sort. It's a judgement call about what to do in what
is obviously a difficult situation.


Dear Riki and Scott and all other devs,

What do I mean with expertise? I created the Win installer. I developed 
it over the years to iron out several issues that arose during the 
years.  Now I encountered a difficult and severe issue. MiKTeX contains 
several features just because of me - they were developed for or with me 
and thus LyX. Therefore I know MiKTeX well. I contacted the MiKTeX 
developer and we developed the probably best solution.
So I have the expertise to make a decision how to handle the particular 
problem. As I said, there won't be a solution to please every user to 
100%. I pondered the different probable solutions and finally came up 
with something that I think would help most people the most. I had to 
make a decision and I decided in favor of average users without 
background knowledge. I decided to move info for experts to the release 
announcement and haven't heard yet why this doesn't suit expert users.


What you do is to question my capabilities of making a decision and thus 
my expertise with LyX-Win-MiKTeX and the installer concept in general



As others have explained, we work as a team here, and none of us ever
gets to make a decision all by ourselves about anything that is
important in LyX.


Sure and I did not decide about LyX but about how a certain installer 
page should look to overcome a problem with a third-party program that 
is Win-only. I think I can decide this. This is no LyX issue. It is an 
additional feature I provide with the installer to also take care of 
third-party programs. You can like it or not but this is no LyX thing. 
If you think so, then I will move the installer code to Github. Then it 
is definitely no LyX thing and we can end this fruitless debate.



have created an
installer that is as automatic as it can be. Many of the rest of us have
real doubts about the wisdom of this,


That is what annoys me. You doubt that I am wise enough to set up LyX 
for Windows users. If you know it better then come up with your own 
installer. Invest your spare time to dive into the Windows registry 
ocean and then create your own installer.
Who sent patches to the installer until now? Not many ad that is the 
point. You judge me without the knowledge. Do I judge how LyX packages 
are built for Linux distris of for Mac? No, because I don't have the 
knowledge. I trust Stefan that he knows what MacOS people need and how 
problems can be worked around the best.


Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 04/04/2018 10:47 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:07:42PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>> I am sorry but I cannot understand not to release the Win installer just for
>> a dialog or not. Is this that important not to release our hard work over
>> months for LyX 2.3.0 for Windows users? Certainly not.
> In my opinion it is that important, because updating LyX could break
> something else on a user's computer. 

For people who did not follow the discussion on lyx-users, I'd like to
draw attention
to this message:
    https://marc.info/?l=lyx-users=152265353312871
To me, it makes it quite clear that the MikTeX update process is very
fragile, even at
the best of times---unsurprisingly, given how much is being updated. (It
reminds me of
what the Fedora update process used to be like.)

Riki

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Apr 04, 2018 at 11:07:42PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 31.03.2018 um 19:37 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> 
> > I've included something along these lines in the newest proposal for a
> > dialog.
> 
> Dear Developers,
> 
> yes, I take it personally that you cannot trust me as Windows developer who
> has experiences with LyX under Windows for more than 10 years. I gave LyX
> lectures to students and did a lot to help users over years.
> 
> I invested much time to write the details for interested people in the LyX
> Wiki and our docs but not to molest average users. So what is your problem?
> That I hide info from users? No, I just decide where I give info. Or why do
> you think I created many different Wiki pages and expert LyX documentation
> files?

I think you did all of that work and spent all of that time because you
care a lot about LyX users.

> I am sorry but I cannot understand not to release the Win installer just for
> a dialog or not. Is this that important not to release our hard work over
> months for LyX 2.3.0 for Windows users? Certainly not.

In my opinion it is that important, because updating LyX could break
something else on a user's computer. As I discussed [1], I think the
consequences could be very bad for users affected by this, especially
average Windows users because it is hard for them to understand why
something that used to work (compilation of a document) no longer works,
and what the problem is, and how to fix it. The average Windows user
would have a lot of trouble with that, and imagine that they have to
deal with that when they face a deadline.

> The situation is with a car: the majority just use it. They press the ON
> button or turn a key to start the motor and drive to e.g. a supermarket.
> They are not interested how the motor start is internally done or even what
> is below the car hood. Their task is to drive to the market. But what you
> want is that everybody should know what is under the hood. Why? Why can't
> people just use things?

I think that analogies can be useful in making points, but only if they
fit correctly. In this analogy what is the part that is analogous to a
MiKTeX update breaking something?

> What I do with the installer, is providing a LyX that just works to be able
> to focus on your task to write the text you want or have to write.

I don't see how providing a dialog works against this goal.

> Please leave the expert point of view that users have to know background
> things. This is not how it works in the Windows world. Or does the
> LibreOffice Win installer bother you with background stuff? No, they don't
> bother users but give all expert info on their Wiki pages - so exactly as I
> do and did.

Did installing LibreOffice update something else? Again, I just don't
understand the analogy. If you agree that a MiKTeX update has a chance
of causing a problem, please represent that element in some way in your
comparisons. If you think that a MiKTeX update cannot cause problems,
then OK let's focus on that issue instead of mixing up other
issues.

> I am currently abroad (and will be the next 2 weeks) and cannot read all
> mails you forwarded to me.

OK.

> It is not very helpful to make a survey on a mailing list since, as I
> explained, most users don't know or use mailing lists. Those who write there
> have usually some background knowledge. But why does my installer not have a
> special dialog - because average users won't understand it because of lack
> of background knowledge.

I have found the feedback from lyx-users to be very helpful. We are
doing our best to come up with a message that is as clear as possible
without causing confusion. I have learned a lot from the replies there,
and I think we are making good progress.

> If you cannot trust my expertise - and it seems so

I'm confident that you have more experience than I do helping Windows
users. Perhaps you have more experience than any single LyX developer
for helping Windows users. But I do not think that the distance is as
large as you think, and I think that as a group, we have a lot of
combined experience. I do not agree with your claim that just because
many of us use Linux, we are incapable of making advice for what we
think is best for Windows users. I help LyX Windows users on lyx-users,
on http://tex.stackexchange.com, and on https://latex.org/forum/. My
family uses Windows, my friends use Windows, my colleagues use Windows,
and my students use Windows. And I am often the technical support for
people in all of those categories. The large majority of people I help
with computers are Windows users, not Linux users. I teach about 80
students a year, and they need to use their computer to work on
assignments. I am their technical support. I am not teaching computer
science students.  Some of the students have very little knowledge of
computers [2]. I just helped a student on Monday who had trouble
figuring out how to find the location of a file they downloaded, and how

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 04/04/2018 07:07 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 31.03.2018 um 19:37 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
>
>> I've included something along these lines in the newest proposal for a
>> dialog.
>
> Dear Developers,
>
> yes, I take it personally that you cannot trust me as Windows
> developer who has experiences with LyX under Windows for more than 10
> years. 

Hi, Uwe,

It is not true that people don't trust you, and it really isn't helpful
to phrase it that way. This is not an issue of expertise, experience, or
anythinng of that sort. It's a judgement call about what to do in what
is obviously a difficult situation.

As others have explained, we work as a team here, and none of us ever
gets to make a decision all by ourselves about anything that is
important in LyX. I am pretty confident that all of us who have been
here for any amount of time have been on both sides of these kinds of
disagreements. I think the rest of us are puzzled why this issue should
be any different from any other where we discuss things, take a vote,
and more forward.

I think all of us understand your point of view. You want users to have
the simplest possible experience and, as a result, have created an
installer that is as automatic as it can be. Many of the rest of us have
real doubts about the wisdom of this, but we are not raising that issue.
The only issue here is: Should we or should we not upgrade aspects of
users' systems without asking their permission to do so? All of us
understand that, eventually, everyone will have to do this upgrade and
that there are things one can do even without upgrading that will break
people's MikTeX installations. Nonetheless, we think that we simply
cannot just *tell* users that we are upgrading their MikTeX
installations or, for that matter, any other software. We have to ask
first, and we have to leave things exactly as they were if people say "no".

I am quite certain that, even if only two-thirds of the team felt that
way, then we'd defer to your judgement. But it is not that way.
Literally everyone else agrees with what I have just written, and we
*all* have to stand behind what we release under the LyX name. It's not
just your reputation that is at stake here.

Riki

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 31.03.2018 um 19:37 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


I've included something along these lines in the newest proposal for a
dialog.


Dear Developers,

yes, I take it personally that you cannot trust me as Windows developer 
who has experiences with LyX under Windows for more than 10 years. I 
gave LyX lectures to students and did a lot to help users over years.


I invested much time to write the details for interested people in the 
LyX Wiki and our docs but not to molest average users. So what is your 
problem? That I hide info from users? No, I just decide where I give 
info. Or why do you think I created many different Wiki pages and expert 
LyX documentation files?


I am sorry but I cannot understand not to release the Win installer just 
for a dialog or not. Is this that important not to release our hard work 
over months for LyX 2.3.0 for Windows users? Certainly not.


The situation is with a car: the majority just use it. They press the ON 
button or turn a key to start the motor and drive to e.g. a supermarket. 
They are not interested how the motor start is internally done or even 
what is below the car hood. Their task is to drive to the market. But 
what you want is that everybody should know what is under the hood. Why? 
Why can't people just use things?


What I do with the installer, is providing a LyX that just works to be 
able to focus on your task to write the text you want or have to write.


Please leave the expert point of view that users have to know background 
things. This is not how it works in the Windows world. Or does the 
LibreOffice Win installer bother you with background stuff? No, they 
don't bother users but give all expert info on their Wiki pages - so 
exactly as I do and did.


I am currently abroad (and will be the next 2 weeks) and cannot read all 
mails you forwarded to me.


It is not very helpful to make a survey on a mailing list since, as I 
explained, most users don't know or use mailing lists. Those who write 
there have usually some background knowledge. But why does my installer 
not have a special dialog - because average users won't understand it 
because of lack of background knowledge.



If you cannot trust my expertise - and it seems so - then I can move my 
installer to Github and announce it as separate program.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 04:13:13PM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

> > Alse we can always add something like "If you don't know what the message 
> > above
> > exactly means you probably want to press 'Yes'" as I sometimes saw on other
> > installers. 
> 
> I think this could be a good idea.

I've included something along these lines in the newest proposal for a
dialog.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 19.03.2018 um 00:44 schrieb Pavel Sanda:


I checked it out. When I used the installer I did not give me any option,
it just 'informed' that MiKTeX is going to be upgraded and forced me to
accept it. That's what I said can make some people mad and decent application
should not do without asking.


You still did not get my point. Average users don't care about 
internals, they just need a running LyX. MiKTeX must be updated to 
assure this.


As said, if you are an expert and have some background knowledge you can 
prevent that the MiKTeX packaging system will be touched by denying any 
package update in the MiKTeX settings. therefore I proposed to add this 
info to the release announcement for experienced users.



I believe that if we add the part of the message I wrote last time which
would simply state something along the lines "If you are not sure, the
answer is most probably Yes." anyone with basic school education would
pass the test, don't you think so?


Again, users that don't understand what the decision is about and press 
No will end up with an unchanged MiKTeX and this will sooner or later 
break their LaTeX setup in such a complete way that you cannot compile 
any LyX document.
The probability of pressing No if you don't understand is 50%. I mean, 
some people are afraid if they don't understand and therefore say no.



Release notes is must read for packagers or maybe also interesting for
people who look for particular fix or feature, general audience will
not read it...


Correct and therefore it is the right place for experts. Average users 
don't read the announcement line by line, also because most users are 
not that familiar with English and our announcements are only in English.


Experienced users with background knowledge will read announcements and 
can also understand what to do.

Off-topic in this thread, but installing experience on Windows was somewhat
frustraing here, mainly because of this on-fly update miktex feature. I have
decent broadband connectivity, but it took *ages* for the update to finish the
first install.


Yes, the first installation can take some time. It will download about 
400 MB. A complete MiKTeX however needs several GB.
However, this is not specific to MiKTeX, if you use TeXLive you will 
need the same download size.



If I were to show LyX to my friend on his Windows computer I
wouldn't be able to reach basic functionality within first hour of install(!).


OK, then the download mirror had problem. I installed LyX today on a PC 
the first time and after 5 minutes everything was ready. Also abroad I 
never needed more than 20 minutes.



Also there seems to be bug, that lyx icon does not disappear from desktop
after unistalling.


So you uninstalled LyX 2.3? Did you install it as admin but uninstall it 
from a non-admin account? In this case the icon cannot be removed 
automatically.


thanks for testing the installer. I find it important that developers 
discussing the installer know how it works and what is possible with it 
and with MiKTeX.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Pavel Sanda]

Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>> Generally speaking - apart from your mom, which might indeed be better
>> served without additional info, there is also crowd of people who go mad
>> when software contain hidden "kits" which were nowhere mentioned.
>
> Sure, but people like my mother are the average users in my experience.  They
> are lost with these kind of additional info because under Windows there is no
> concept of package handling and dependencies. This concept is simply unknown
> for most users. I never forgot the experienced users. The installer already
> provides several options they can use. Just check it out to see what you can
> do.  For this particular case, see my proposal above. With this the experts
> know what to do.

I checked it out. When I used the installer I did not give me any option,
it just 'informed' that MiKTeX is going to be upgraded and forced me to
accept it. That's what I said can make some people mad and decent application
should not do without asking. 

I believe that if we add the part of the message I wrote last time which 
would simply state something along the lines "If you are not sure, the
answer is most probably Yes." anyone with basic school education would
pass the test, don't you think so?

Release notes is must read for packagers or maybe also interesting for
people who look for particular fix or feature, general audience will
not read it...

Pavel

Off-topic in this thread, but installing experience on Windows was somewhat
frustraing here, mainly because of this on-fly update miktex feature. I have
decent broadband connectivity, but it took *ages* for the update to finish the
first install. If I were to show LyX to my friend on his Windows computer I
wouldn't be able to reach basic functionality within first hour of install(!).
It's somewhat paradoxical that normal debian install which is much bigger (in
total like 2.5 GB for lyx+texlive) takes order of magnitude less time to
install (in total like 2.5 GB for lyx+texlive; surprisingly most of it is just
'doc' directory, packages+core texlive make it into some 300mb only).
Also there seems to be bug, that lyx icon does not disappear from desktop
after unistalling.

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Joel Kulesza]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Scott Kostyshak  wrote:

>
> Thanks for those arguments, Joel. You make good points. However, I think
> we should still go forward with the release.


Understood, and as I said: I held unpopular opinions.  If I felt strongly,
I would have contributed these thoughts earlier.  What I'm happiest about,
in the short term, is the constructive dialog.  In the longer term, it's
been a treat to watch a culturally diverse and globally distributed
development team maintain, continue to develop, and release a significant
piece of software.


> As for what to tell your colleagues, that is up to you. I'm planning to
> tell anyone who asks that there are unofficial binaries available that
> are made by a LyX developer, that have been tested and that work well,
> and I will then mention in some way (perhaps using the same text as in
> the dialog that we're discussing) that the installer will automatically
> update their MiKTeX installation.


Understood, and perhaps I missed the plan that "unofficial" ones are still
being made available.  That makes the situation more palatable while a
complete solution is sought.

Thanks,
Joel

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 07:27:57PM +, Joel Kulesza wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Scott Kostyshak  wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 08:56:15AM +, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> >
> > > I agree that the language of the dialog can be a problem. But there is
> > no rush
> > > and if you can't stand for the version with english dialog, we can
> > advertise
> > > the installer once you get the translations you need and are happy with
> > the
> > > state of the installer.
> >
> > +1
> >
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> > Indeed. I'm very happy that we are continuing this discussion. We are
> > still using logic, combined with examples (e.g. Uwe's example of his
> > Mom), and trying to understand each other's arguments. This is not a fun
> > debate and we are all tired, but we must continue. Although it might
> > take time, I really hope that we can come to a solution. It would be a
> > sad day for users and for developers if this escalated more and we
> > abandoned the goal of providing Windows binaries on the website. I will
> > not abandon that goal. From what I see, we are still working towards a
> > solution. Thank you to all for participating in this issue that is
> > frustrating for everyone.
> >
> 
> +1; I too appreciate this discussion to ensure that the best possible
> software is provided to all end users on all OSs.  I have little ability to
> contribute to the technical aspects of the debate, but a couple personal
> (and perhaps unpopular) thoughts and an anecdote:
> 
>1. I would rather see proper time taken to release 2.3.0 coherently for
>all supported platforms in as good of shape as possible (as determined by
>developer consensus, and perhaps with some compromise) rather than
>suspension of cross-platform support (temporary or permanent).  I work and
>play with others in heavily cross-platform environments.  A major selling
>point for both LaTeX and LyX (c.f., MS Word) is that they are
>cross-platform on the three major OSs. 

>I would have a hard time fairly
>explaining to Windows colleagues why I've received a new version of LyX
>ahead of them.
>
>2. If taking proper time means delaying to await fixes to MikTeX,
>translations for dialogs, etc. (as determined by the development team) then
>so be it.  Ultimately, if someone installs something from lyx.org and it
>causes a problem, the blame and burden falls on the LyX team regardless of
>the underlying cause.  Using an analogy in the spirit of this thread: if my
>car breaks down I don't care which sub-supplier made the part that failed.
>The car's manufacturer is who takes the blame.  However, new car models get
>delayed and recalls happen.  That's fine as long as the problem is dealt
>with as timely and ethically as possible.
>3. Unfortunately, and unfairly, the damage caused by creating user
>frustration may never be observed by the LyX team and thus be unable to be
>addressed ending up with an unaware development team and a marooned user.
>The development team is aware of a potential Windows installer issue, so
>I'm happy to see everyone discussing it to get the best possible solution
>despite the frustration involved.  Imagining things as a
>(new/inexperienced/etc.) user: if I saw a (temporary or permanent)
>unavailability or failing of a Windows installer I would see it as a
>failing of LyX and not some underlying dependency.  The omission of the
>Windows installer (or it failing during installation), would have me
>question the quality of the software as a whole and the development team's
>practices (regardless of which OS I use).  I have personal experience with
>LyX failing me (turning into a complete abandonment of it between
>2004-2014).  Was I an inexperienced user in 2004?  Yes.  Should I have
>pursued asking about the problems I was having?  Yes.  Did I?  No.  I took
>the "easy" path and returned to what worked for me when it came to
>LaTeXing.  I don't like to imagine another user choosing to do that.
> 
> - Joel
> 
> P.S. One reason I see no need to push the release before it's ready (other
> than potentially reducing Scott's stress as release manager) is because the
> RCs are out there.  A user wanting/needing 2.3.0 (in as good of form as
> possible when released) and its features can find and use them.  Do I like
> a delay in 2.3.0?  No.  But I'd much rather see the right product go out
> later than a known incomplete or flawed product go out sooner.

Thanks for those arguments, Joel. You make good points. However, I think
we should still go forward with the release. I actually think that in
the last few days, since we made the decision to go forward without the
Windows binaries for now, we've had the best discussions. I think that
by releasing now, we can continue calmly discussing a solution to get
the Windows binaries up.

Not releasing would just cause more and more 

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Joel Kulesza]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Scott Kostyshak  wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 08:56:15AM +, Pavel Sanda wrote:
>
> > I agree that the language of the dialog can be a problem. But there is
> no rush
> > and if you can't stand for the version with english dialog, we can
> advertise
> > the installer once you get the translations you need and are happy with
> the
> > state of the installer.
>
> +1
>

+1


> Indeed. I'm very happy that we are continuing this discussion. We are
> still using logic, combined with examples (e.g. Uwe's example of his
> Mom), and trying to understand each other's arguments. This is not a fun
> debate and we are all tired, but we must continue. Although it might
> take time, I really hope that we can come to a solution. It would be a
> sad day for users and for developers if this escalated more and we
> abandoned the goal of providing Windows binaries on the website. I will
> not abandon that goal. From what I see, we are still working towards a
> solution. Thank you to all for participating in this issue that is
> frustrating for everyone.
>

+1; I too appreciate this discussion to ensure that the best possible
software is provided to all end users on all OSs.  I have little ability to
contribute to the technical aspects of the debate, but a couple personal
(and perhaps unpopular) thoughts and an anecdote:

   1. I would rather see proper time taken to release 2.3.0 coherently for
   all supported platforms in as good of shape as possible (as determined by
   developer consensus, and perhaps with some compromise) rather than
   suspension of cross-platform support (temporary or permanent).  I work and
   play with others in heavily cross-platform environments.  A major selling
   point for both LaTeX and LyX (c.f., MS Word) is that they are
   cross-platform on the three major OSs.  I would have a hard time fairly
   explaining to Windows colleagues why I've received a new version of LyX
   ahead of them.
   2. If taking proper time means delaying to await fixes to MikTeX,
   translations for dialogs, etc. (as determined by the development team) then
   so be it.  Ultimately, if someone installs something from lyx.org and it
   causes a problem, the blame and burden falls on the LyX team regardless of
   the underlying cause.  Using an analogy in the spirit of this thread: if my
   car breaks down I don't care which sub-supplier made the part that failed.
   The car's manufacturer is who takes the blame.  However, new car models get
   delayed and recalls happen.  That's fine as long as the problem is dealt
   with as timely and ethically as possible.
   3. Unfortunately, and unfairly, the damage caused by creating user
   frustration may never be observed by the LyX team and thus be unable to be
   addressed ending up with an unaware development team and a marooned user.
   The development team is aware of a potential Windows installer issue, so
   I'm happy to see everyone discussing it to get the best possible solution
   despite the frustration involved.  Imagining things as a
   (new/inexperienced/etc.) user: if I saw a (temporary or permanent)
   unavailability or failing of a Windows installer I would see it as a
   failing of LyX and not some underlying dependency.  The omission of the
   Windows installer (or it failing during installation), would have me
   question the quality of the software as a whole and the development team's
   practices (regardless of which OS I use).  I have personal experience with
   LyX failing me (turning into a complete abandonment of it between
   2004-2014).  Was I an inexperienced user in 2004?  Yes.  Should I have
   pursued asking about the problems I was having?  Yes.  Did I?  No.  I took
   the "easy" path and returned to what worked for me when it came to
   LaTeXing.  I don't like to imagine another user choosing to do that.

- Joel

P.S. One reason I see no need to push the release before it's ready (other
than potentially reducing Scott's stress as release manager) is because the
RCs are out there.  A user wanting/needing 2.3.0 (in as good of form as
possible when released) and its features can find and use them.  Do I like
a delay in 2.3.0?  No.  But I'd much rather see the right product go out
later than a known incomplete or flawed product go out sooner.

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 03/16/2018 12:13 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 08:56:15AM +, Pavel Sanda wrote:
> I think I differ from Pavel (and Richard?) perhaps in that my main
> argument is actually focused on the average Windows user of LyX. [...] There 
> are more and more average Windows users who use LaTeX. [...] LaTeX is more 
> commonly required by some undergraduate classes

Thanks for this, Scott. You are absolutely right about this. I've seen
it quite a bit at Brown.

RK




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 03:40:01PM +, Richard Kimberly Heck wrote:
> On 03/16/2018 10:09 AM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > Am 16.03.2018 um 09:56 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
> >
> >> Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> >>> So my plan is to use the 2.3.0 installer also as repair kit.
> >>
> >> Yes, this was kind of clear and pretty much everyone on this list
> >> thinks that
> >> we should not do such things hiddenly without advertising.
> >
> > This is not hidden. As you have seen, I already pop up a dialog
> > telling that the installer will now upgrade your package handling
> > system. This dialog is necessary because depending on when users
> > upgraded their MiKTeX the last time, this can take up to 5 minutes. I
> > have to pop up this dialog because if users would close the installer
> > meanwhile they surely end up with a broken MiKTeX.
> 
> The thing no one understands is why you won't ASK the user if you can do
> this rather than TELLING them that you are going to do so.

> I think you
> underestimate the intelligence of LyX's users.

I agree. I think there is some conflation of "inexperienced user" with
"unintelligent" user. I believe that most of the Windows LyX users are
intelligent (I mean, they're choosing to use LyX right? That's got to
give them some points). I actually think that even an unintelligent user
would be more likely to benefit from the dialog than to be harmed by it.
If they are not able to understand the dialog, then they would likely
never be able to fix any potential problem that a MiKTeX update could
bring.

> It's not enough to add a note to the release announcement. No one reads
> that.

I agree. I think Uwe was responding to Pavel's point about doing things
"without advertising", and it is true that Uwe has suggested several
times to advertise it in the release notes and announcement. Since my
argument is focused on the average user, I am even more concerned with
only mentioning it in the release announcement and release notes since I
think that average users are less likely to read the release
announcement than experienced users.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 08:56:15AM +, Pavel Sanda wrote:

> I agree that the language of the dialog can be a problem. But there is no rush
> and if you can't stand for the version with english dialog, we can advertise
> the installer once you get the translations you need and are happy with the
> state of the installer.

+1 

> Generally speaking - apart from your mom, which might indeed be better served
> without additional info, there is also crowd of people who go mad when 
> software
> contain hidden "kits" which were nowhere mentioned. 
> One never knows what the rest of MikTeX is used on the system and I do not buy
> that because of people who are technically less capable, we should abandon the
> people, who _are_ capable to comprehend what "forced update of MikTeX" means.

I think I differ from Pavel (and Richard?) perhaps in that my main
argument is actually focused on the average Windows user of LyX. I agree
that experienced users would also be affected, and perhaps might be the
most upset and frustrated because they could interpret it as a basic
principle of software has been violated. In some sense though, I agree
with Uwe that in practice experienced users would be able to recover and
figure out a way to fix their problem. I do not take lightly the
short-run anger and problems that such experienced users would have: for
example, imagine an experienced user needs to submit a PDF within 30
minutes to meet a deadline. There is not enough time to fix the problem,
even if they know how to fix it.

It is just that I think we would cause even *worse* potential problems
for the average user.

It is possible that everyone (e.g. Pavel, Richard, Uwe, and Benedict,
who just responded on lyx-users [1]) disagree with me on this, but I
would still like to explain my argument.

There are more and more average Windows users who use LaTeX. LaTeX is
becoming more popular, and a (good, in my opinion) result of this is
that more non-technical people are starting to use LaTeX. LaTeX is more
commonly required by some undergraduate classes, for example. e.g., in
some math classes students are either given a 10 minute introduction by
a teaching assistant, or instead just given a URL to an introduction to
LaTeX, and told that they must turn their homework in using LaTeX. Just
as Uwe gave a good use case about his mom, I will provide a couple of
examples: suppose that a student wrote their homework in LaTeX and needs
to turn it in in a couple of hours. They hear from another student that
this program called LyX can be an easier way to write their homework so
they install LyX, but perhaps LyX causes their homework to not compile
anymore. I do not think the teacher will accept the argument that
"LyX ate my homework" [2]. I do not think this situation is *likely*,
but I think it is *possible*, and I think that a dialog is more likely
to save such a user from a problem than it is to confuse or hurt a user.

The above argument depends on my position that a MiKTeX update can cause
problems. Uwe explained why he disagrees with this because bugs
introduced in a LaTeX package update would be quickly fixed because many
people would experience them. But I think that is not always the case
because some bugs only show up with different combinations of packages
used. In the above case of the math student, I don't think there is a
high chance of a problem because probably the student is using simple
and common packages (although who knows what they copied from some
website). Even in this case though, I've seen error messages about e.g.
simple commands being deprecated, such as \rm, which needs to be
replaced with \textrm.

Another example is that some coauthors who use LaTeX might convince
another coauthor to use LaTeX. That coauthor might not know LaTeX at
all, but use it by just editing the text of the other coauthors.
Installing LyX and hence updating MiKTeX could break that user's setup.
I've actually seen this happen from an updated MiKTeX, and the user
swore never to use LaTeX again ("I can't believe that an update of LaTeX
[sic] caused my document not to convert [sic] to PDF. I'm never using
LaTeX again."). That user was not a LyX user, and I am not sure that a
dialog in LyX would have saved that user from that pain, but I think
that there's a higher chance it would have saved that user than hurt
that user.

I don't know if many on this list follow the questions on
tex.stackexchange.com [3], but there are *a lot* of questions on LaTeX
by very inexperienced users. It is not only power users that use LaTeX
outside of LyX.

In summary, my line of logic goes as follows:

1. Experienced users are more likely to have problems than
average users because they are more likely to use LaTeX outside of
LyX...

2. ... but there are many average users who use LaTeX outside of LyX...

2. ... and if an average user runs into a problem, it is a lot worse for
them because they will have a lot more trouble to fix it.

I think that the "cost" 

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Kimberly Heck]

On 03/16/2018 10:09 AM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 16.03.2018 um 09:56 schrieb Pavel Sanda:
>
>> Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>>> So my plan is to use the 2.3.0 installer also as repair kit.
>>
>> Yes, this was kind of clear and pretty much everyone on this list
>> thinks that
>> we should not do such things hiddenly without advertising.
>
> This is not hidden. As you have seen, I already pop up a dialog
> telling that the installer will now upgrade your package handling
> system. This dialog is necessary because depending on when users
> upgraded their MiKTeX the last time, this can take up to 5 minutes. I
> have to pop up this dialog because if users would close the installer
> meanwhile they surely end up with a broken MiKTeX.

The thing no one understands is why you won't ASK the user if you can do
this rather than TELLING them that you are going to do so. I think you
underestimate the intelligence of LyX's users.

It's not enough to add a note to the release announcement. No one reads
that.

RK

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 16.03.2018 um 09:56 schrieb Pavel Sanda:


Uwe Stöhr wrote:

So my plan is to use the 2.3.0 installer also as repair kit.


Yes, this was kind of clear and pretty much everyone on this list thinks that
we should not do such things hiddenly without advertising.


This is not hidden. As you have seen, I already pop up a dialog telling 
that the installer will now upgrade your package handling system. This 
dialog is necessary because depending on when users upgraded their 
MiKTeX the last time, this can take up to 5 minutes. I have to pop up 
this dialog because if users would close the installer meanwhile they 
surely end up with a broken MiKTeX.


Scott made his point that the package upgrade could lead to a state 
where a fresh package version from CTAN has a regression bug. My point 
is, yes this can happen, but then all TeX users are affected and such 
bugs are fixed very quickly.


I also proposed several times now to add an info to the release 
announcement for experienced users how they can prevent the package 
upgrade if they really want this and that the consequence is that they 
might sooner or later break their MiKTeX. If this happens they can use 
the 2.3.0 installer.

Maybe I missed this but I haven't seen a reply to my proposal yet.


Generally speaking - apart from your mom, which might indeed be better served
without additional info, there is also crowd of people who go mad when software
contain hidden "kits" which were nowhere mentioned.


Sure, but people like my mother are the average users in my experience. 
They are lost with these kind of additional info because under Windows 
there is no concept of package handling and dependencies. This concept 
is simply unknown for most users.
I never forgot the experienced users. The installer already provides 
several options they can use. Just check it out to see what you can do.
For this particular case, see my proposal above. With this the experts 
know what to do.


In general, experts always find a way to resolve problems. They can also 
write a mail to our lists to get help. Average users would be lost. You 
can for example not expect anybody in my family to know how a mailing 
list or a bug tracker works. The LyX developers working at a university 
can for example ask their students (if they are not IT students) if they 
ever used a mailing list or bugtracker. If even some students don't use 
or know it, you can imagine the knowledge of average users. In my 
classes (I once gave introduction lessons to LyX), not even a quarter 
knew about bug trackers.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Pavel Sanda]

Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> So my plan is to use the 2.3.0 installer also as repair kit.

Yes, this was kind of clear and pretty much everyone on this list thinks that
we should not do such things hiddenly without advertising.

I agree that the language of the dialog can be a problem. But there is no rush
and if you can't stand for the version with english dialog, we can advertise
the installer once you get the translations you need and are happy with the
state of the installer.


Generally speaking - apart from your mom, which might indeed be better served
without additional info, there is also crowd of people who go mad when software
contain hidden "kits" which were nowhere mentioned. 
One never knows what the rest of MikTeX is used on the system and I do not buy
that because of people who are technically less capable, we should abandon the
people, who _are_ capable to comprehend what "forced update of MikTeX" means.

If we are not friendly to such users, we will hardly get new Windows developers,
who recruit from the more capable ones.


Anyway, I hope we can still make some compromise here. I think Scott is trying
hard to help and come up with some message which would be comprehensible to an
average user and your input would be surely welcome.

Alse we can always add something like "If you don't know what the message above
exactly means you probably want to press 'Yes'" as I sometimes saw on other
installers. 

For the rest of the day,
Pavel

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 15.03.2018 um 18:29 schrieb Richard Heck:


I was talking about whether anything would happen *as a result of
someone running
the installer*. I understand that there are *other* ways that the MiKTeX
installation can
be damaged, as happened to your mother. That is a really horrible MiKTeX
bug, and
there is nothing we can do about it.


Yes, that is exactly the case.
I fully agree that it is not the task of an installer to change existing 
installations if not really necessary. In this case however, I think 
this is necessary. Users don't even running an installer can end up with 
in a state where they cannot compile any LyX document.
Therefore the LyX 2.3.0 installer needs to trigger the package 
management update. Only this way it is possible to repair broken MiKTeX 
systems. So users end up being lost can use the LyX 2.3.0 installer to 
get back to work. Therefore my plan is to implement the repair mechanism 
in the installer for 2.2.4 too.


The installer for 2.3.1 will be the normal one not touching the package 
handling system. So at least we can provide one installer repairing 
things.  So if users e.g. don't update LyX for a long time but run into 
problems, could then use the 2.3.0 installer and install the current 
2.3.x afterwards.



I decided that I cannot stand for an installer that can send many
users into serious
troubles despite I know a way to prevent this.


The only issue here is: Do we add a dialog of the sort in question? The
installer with
that dialog cannot cause any new problems, because either: (1) the
person installs LyX
and it updates MiKTeX just as you want; (2) the person does not install
LyX, in which
case they are in the same situation they were before, because the
installer was a no-op.


That is my point. Users like e.g. my mother (who can read English but 
are not very good at it) might misunderstand the dialog and deny the 
update. Therefore they don't get the new LyX and, moreover, the 
probability is high that they end up with a screwed-up LaTeX some weeks 
later.
English is an important point here in my opinion because in such a short 
time I cannot manage to get the dialog properly translated. So e.g. 
German users get the installer in German except of the dialog you want. 
This makes it even more difficult to understand what the dialog is 
about. I also think that a dialog is not sufficient to explain all the 
details/reasons behind it. (Personally I also don't like that I have to 
issue a dialog to assure people keep the installer open until it is 
finished, because non-native speakers will have problems to understand it.)



The installer for LyX 2.3.1 will return to the old behavior.


Why? Won't that just break the installations of people still using 2.2.3?


We can add a sentence in the announcement text of LyX 2.3.1 that people 
should use the 2.3.0 installer first to avoid problems. And if users did 
not mention it and ask for help we can send them the link to the 2.3.0 
installer.
So my plan is to use the 2.3.0 installer also as repair kit. Why 2.3.? 
Because every LyX 2.3.x release can be installed over an existing 2.3.0 
installation. This installer feature is major a goal. So if this is not 
possible, there is a bug in the installer I will fix.


I am currently traveling, so please excuse delays in my responses.

regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 05:29:30PM +, Richard Heck wrote:

> > The installer for LyX 2.3.1 will return to the old behavior. 
> 
> Why? Won't that just break the installations of people still using 2.2.3?

I'm also confused by this. Maybe he means that in the case that an
installation of LyX 2.3.0 is detected, the 2.3.1 installer would not
need to update MiKTeX.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Heck]

On 03/15/2018 11:45 AM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 14.03.2018 um 04:31 schrieb Richard Heck:
>
>> If this dialog is popped at the very beginning of the installation,
>> before ANYTHING is actually done, then it is impossible that the
>> MiKTeX installation
>> should be affected.
>
> This is not true and I don't get why I cannot make this clear to you.

I was talking about whether anything would happen *as a result of
someone running
the installer*. I understand that there are *other* ways that the MiKTeX
installation can
be damaged, as happened to your mother. That is a really horrible MiKTeX
bug, and
there is nothing we can do about it.

> I decided that I cannot stand for an installer that can send many
> users into serious
> troubles despite I know a way to prevent this.

The only issue here is: Do we add a dialog of the sort in question? The
installer with
that dialog cannot cause any new problems, because either: (1) the
person installs LyX
and it updates MiKTeX just as you want; (2) the person does not install
LyX, in which
case they are in the same situation they were before, because the
installer was a no-op.
Granted, they might screw up their MiKTeX installation eventually, but
that is a
MiKTeX bug and ought to be dealt with at that level.

> The installer for LyX 2.3.1 will return to the old behavior. 

Why? Won't that just break the installations of people still using 2.2.3?

Richard

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 14.03.2018 um 04:31 schrieb Richard Heck:


If this dialog is popped at the very beginning of the installation,
before ANYTHING
is actually done, then it is impossible that the MiKTeX installation
should be affected.


This is not true and I don't get why I cannot make this clear to you.

Maybe another example: My mother called me today. She uses LyX 2.2.3. I 
sent her a document I wrote the last days to proof-read. I don't know 
what triggered her problem, but she ended up with a broken LaTeX not 
able to compile any LyX document any longer. Maybe she had not all 
packages installed I use in the document.
However, the exact cause is not important. She did not use any 
installer. As I wrote, users just using LyX 2.2.x can screw up their 
LaTeX and I experienced this by myself.
I sent here the link to the 2.3.0 installer and it worked: the solution 
proposed by the MiKTeX developer repaired her system. So she uses now 
LyX 2.3.0 and it works for her and I am happy. This solution needs the 
updated package handling system.


As I wrote now a dozen times, the installer for 2.3.0 will be an 
exception. I have to assure that LyX users don't end up lost. 
Experienced users can be informed by two sentences in the release 
announcement. Average users cannot have the choice to deny the package 
update because if they leave their system untouched they can screw up 
their system sooner or later.

The installer for LyX 2.3.1 will return to the old behavior.

I reacted so pissed-off because I get the feeling that you and others 
don't trust me "a single meter" as we say in German that I decided the 
right thing. I made a decision because I believe this is the best for 
most users. I am also not happy that I had to change the installer's 
default behavior but it is like it is.



I am talking about average users and my mother is a good example. She 
was lost with her screwed-up LaTeX. She doesn't know anything about 
packages, dependencies, commands etc. Well, average users are just 
users. For example she became a Gimp master surprising me quite often 
but she doesn't know anything about color models, Gimp plugins etc.. 
That should not prevent users from using a program.


If I am no longer allowed to assure that average users like my mother 
get a fully functional LyX, it makes no sense for me to provide an 
installer any longer.



Please let's end the debate. I decided that I cannot stand for an 
installer that can send many users into serious troubles despite I know 
a way to prevent this.

If you don't trust me, turn on your Windows PCs and try it out by yourself.
If you don't have experiences with LyX users without knowledge of 
packages, LaTeX etc, under Windows please stop claiming what is good for 
them.
If you don't trust me at all or think I do evil things, provide your own 
installer or don't release LyX for Windows.


I have currently other problems to deal with than LyX. I already spent 
too much time with the installer because of the MiKTeX problem.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[racoon]

On 15.03.2018 04:13, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 01:48:02AM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:


Why don't you add a sentence or two to the release notes for the experienced
users that they can set in MiKTeX "never" to package updates. Experienced
users will understand this. That is the most suitable solution.


I think a dialog is more appropriate, because problems from upgrading
MiKTeX could affect anyone, not just experienced users.


I tend to agree. However, maybe the dialog should state only true things?

So, either it should come up only when the 'never' option isn't set 
(preferably), or indicate that


* MiKTeX will be updated (unless 'Install missing packages on-the-fly' 
is set to 'never')


I know, that makes things worse in one respect (complicating the dialog)...

Daniel

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 01:48:02AM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:

> Why don't you add a sentence or two to the release notes for the experienced
> users that they can set in MiKTeX "never" to package updates. Experienced
> users will understand this. That is the most suitable solution.

I think a dialog is more appropriate, because problems from upgrading
MiKTeX could affect anyone, not just experienced users.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Heck]

On 03/13/2018 09:48 PM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 13.03.2018 um 04:17 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
>
>> I definitely agree that every additional dialog is an additional
>> possibility for confusion. I think where we disagree is on the benefit
>> that the dialog could bring.
>
> Yes. You don't understand that users who don't about LaTeX and deny
> the update can end
> up with a completely screwed up MiKTeX. 

If this dialog is popped at the very beginning of the installation,
before ANYTHING
is actually done, then it is impossible that the MiKTeX installation
should be affected.
That is as obvious as it could possibly be. The 'install' should be a
no-op if the user
cancels.

Richard

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 13.03.2018 um 04:17 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


I definitely agree that every additional dialog is an additional
possibility for confusion. I think where we disagree is on the benefit
that the dialog could bring.


Yes. You don't understand that users who don't about LaTeX and deny the 
update can end up with a completely screwed up MiKTeX. They will then be 
lost and will loose all personal LaTeX settings.
This is unacceptable. So should I sent hundred to users into this just 
for an info for experienced users that could also be given in the 
release notes? I won't do this. Point.


Why don't you add a sentence or two to the release notes for the 
experienced users that they can set in MiKTeX "never" to package 
updates. Experienced users will understand this. That is the most 
suitable solution.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:16:21PM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:08:35AM +, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote:
> 
> > Here is a proposal:
> > 
> > "LyX is going to update MiKTeX to the last 2.9 version.
> > "If you do not use MiKTeX with other applications than LyX, you can 
> > continue safely.
> > "If you do use MiKTeX with other applications and do not want to update it
> > right now or want to perform the update yourself, you may postpone LyX
> > installation
> > "  Later  Continue
> 
> I like the proposal. I've made my proposal based on yours, with several
> modifications:
> 
> The LyX installer is going to update MiKTeX to the newest 2.9
> version. If you do not use MiKTeX with applications other than LyX,
> you likely want to choose "Continue". If you do use MiKTeX with
> other applications and do not want to update it now, or want to
> perform the update yourself, you can cancel the LyX installation
> now.
> 
>  Cancel   Continue

We might want to add something like "LyX 2.3.0 is only compatible with
the newest version of MiKTeX, 2.9..." to give a brief explanation of why
we must do the update.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:08:35AM +, Jean-Pierre Chrétien wrote:

> Here is a proposal:
> 
> "LyX is going to update MiKTeX to the last 2.9 version.
> "If you do not use MiKTeX with other applications than LyX, you can continue 
> safely.
> "If you do use MiKTeX with other applications and do not want to update it
> right now or want to perform the update yourself, you may postpone LyX
> installation
> "  Later  Continue

I like the proposal. I've made my proposal based on yours, with several
modifications:

The LyX installer is going to update MiKTeX to the newest 2.9
version. If you do not use MiKTeX with applications other than LyX,
you likely want to choose "Continue". If you do use MiKTeX with
other applications and do not want to update it now, or want to
perform the update yourself, you can cancel the LyX installation
now.

 Cancel   Continue


I've sent the dialog to lyx-users to see whether they find it confusing.
If the feedback says that the average user would not find it confusing,
we can improve the message and ask Uwe if he is willing to add it to the
installer.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 03:17:58AM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

> > Can't you see that the majority doesn't know what a package is? Most
> > of my students and colleagues didn't know this but were able to write their
> > master or Ph.D. thesis with LyX.
> > Therefore giving users a choice they don't understand is a problem. What is
> > if they deny to install LyX, continue using LyX 2.2.x and screw up their
> > MiKTeX?
> > Who has a chance to fix a broken package or similar? Those who know what a
> > package is. These guys have the knowledge to forbid any update if they like
> > to and the installer lets them do this. Average users would be lost with
> > their screwed-up LaTeX. Therefore I made my decision.
> 
> I have thought about this, and I don't think the dialog will lead to
> such problems. Further, several others have agreed that this is not a
> concern.

I think it would be a good idea to check with lyx-users. I'm not sure
why we didn't do this before. Who better to say if a dialog is confusing
than the users? Of course, people on lyx-users are more advanced LyX
users than the average user, but they are still better positioned than
we are to know how the average user would react.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 08:52:52PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:

> It is not, it only make things worse. Every dialog can cause confusions. You
> are only looking from your professional view and I failed to make this
> clear.

I could be wrong on this, but I thought that I brought up the idea that
the dialog could bring confusion before you did (unless I missed an
email?):

https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid=20180310235731.h67c535wh5tmosoc%40steph

I definitely agree that every additional dialog is an additional
possibility for confusion. I think where we disagree is on the benefit
that the dialog could bring.

> Can't you see that the majority doesn't know what a package is? Most
> of my students and colleagues didn't know this but were able to write their
> master or Ph.D. thesis with LyX.
> Therefore giving users a choice they don't understand is a problem. What is
> if they deny to install LyX, continue using LyX 2.2.x and screw up their
> MiKTeX?
> Who has a chance to fix a broken package or similar? Those who know what a
> package is. These guys have the knowledge to forbid any update if they like
> to and the installer lets them do this. Average users would be lost with
> their screwed-up LaTeX. Therefore I made my decision.

I have thought about this, and I don't think the dialog will lead to
such problems. Further, several others have agreed that this is not a
concern.

> I think you should respect that the guy who builds the installer and
> provides support in case of a problem with it has good reasons. We spoke
> about the topic, I red your arguments but stay with my decision. It is my
> spare time in case of problems so I am the one risking something. I thought
> about it a lot to be as safe as possible for most users.

I do not like this talk of respect (and before, of trust). I respect you
very much. You have given so much of your time to LyX, and you have
spent so much time on parts of LyX that are not fun (e.g. documentation
and supporting users) because you know how important it is for the
users. I also trust you. But we are a team and we make decisions as a
team. Going with the decision of the team has nothing to do with respect
or trust.

> I explained now in a dozen mails my decision. Feel free to add whatever you
> like in the release notes. Feel also free not to announce the Win installer
> officially or not to put it in ftp.lyx.org.

> Let's end the debate. Please make your decision and let's focus in LyX
> 2.3.1.

Since you are the only one that supports not having a dialog, and
everyone else (who has expressed an opinion) agrees that a dialog would
be beneficial, my decision is that we should add the dialog.

I ask that you respect the opinion of the group and that you add the
dialog. I know you have already spent so much time on this, and I am
sorry to ask you to do something that you do not want to do, but that is
the decision of the group.

Every one of us has been in the situation where we think we are right
and the rest of the group is wrong. But it's important to understand
that we must make decisions as a team.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Pavel Sanda]

Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> I explained now in a dozen mails my decision. Feel free to add whatever you 
> like in the release notes. Feel also free not to announce the Win installer 
> officially or not to put it in ftp.lyx.org.

Ok, can you please make it clear whether this silent behind-back upgrade is only
part of bundle installer or is it part of the small one as well? Somehow it was
not clear from your summary.

> Let's end the debate. Please make your decision and let's focus in LyX 
> 2.3.1.

I agree.
Pavel

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Pavel Sanda]

Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Note however that using LyX without LaTeX is not really a pleasure. One 
> gets at each use a dialog box on startup plus  dialog box for each loaded 
> file complaining that something is wrong. I have to install texlive on my 
> home windows 10 computer just for that (I did not intend yet to actually 
> create documents there, I just wanted to debug display issues).
>
> While my use case is not important in itself, I think it would be 
> worthwhile to allow LyX to work nicely as a pure editor.

I agree.
Either we can add RC variable for ignoring those or we could adding "Do not
show this message again" checkbox to the particular messages.

Pavel

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Jean-Pierre Chrétien]

Le 11/03/2018 à 18:17, Richard Heck a écrit :



I cannot for the life of me see why adding a warning that proceeding
with the installation will require updating MikTeX, and giving the user
the option to abort the installation, could cause any problems at all.
If there's a worry that this will confuse some users, then we could add
text that says something like: If you do not use LaTeX outside of LyX,
then it is safe for you to proceed.


+1, and I will explain why below.

I never came in in this debate because I am not a Windows user at all.
However, I kept a 32bits Windows 10 boot on my wife's laptop, which I very 
seldomly use for mobile or gps maintenance, and which is not used by my wife at 
all. So I gave a try to the last Windows installer (5), bundle version (this 
version is not the subject of the present debate about MiKTeX update breaking 
things, but I wanted to have an idea of the involved dialogs).


So the install went to its end without problems, but for the same message as 
racoon:


Package "miktex-bin-2.9" is up to date.
Sorry, but "MiKTeX Package Manager" did not succeed for the following reason:

  Package "miktex-console-bin-2.9" is already installed.

The log file hopefully contains the information to get MiKTeX going again:

  C:/Users/Daniel/AppData/Local/MiKTeX/2.9/miktex/log/mpmcli.log

You may want to visit the MiKTeX project page, if you need help.
Sorry, but "MiKTeX Package Manager" did not succeed.

The log file hopefully contains the information to get MiKTeX going again:

  C:/Users/Daniel/AppData/Local/MiKTeX/2.9/miktex/log/mpmcli.log

You may want to visit the MiKTeX project page, if you need help.
There are currently no updates available.


This are further lines saying that

  Package "miktex-console-mpm-2.9" is installed.

and installation proceeds.

I do not know where to find the log, so I saw these lines because I pressed the 
« En savoir plus » button in the LyX Installation progress window, I guess that 
an average user would not do that and thus would not be affected.


Then I opened LyX and tried to compile UserGuide.pdf. I must have been impatient 
because I first had an error about url.sty missing, I guess MiKTeX was still 
upgrading in the background. I finally got a successful compilation, but no 
output image because of missing pdf viewer (as I said, this Windows 10 is not 
used at all to parse documents). I exported to pdf via pdflatex and finally 
could open the file with Edge, which is thus not recognized as a pdf viewer, 
even after reconfigure.


After the install and the UserGuide compilation, LyX-2.3.0 dir size is 383Mo, 
and MiKTeX 2.9 dir size is 1.14Go. On my Debian Stretch, I have this:


$ du -skh /ext/lyx/lyx-2.3.0 /usr/local/share/lyx-2.3.0 /opt/texlive/2017/
256M/ext/lyx/lyx-2.3.0/  (lyx compilation dir, can be removed)
42k /usr/local/share/lyx-2.3.0   (lyx resources dir)
5.9G/opt/texlive/2017/   (full TeXLive install)

After this record of a bundle installation on a fresh computer, I come to 
Richard's proposal to add a 'later/continue' dialog at the beginning of the 
process for the plain installer.
During the installation process, I was constantly reminded that there was some 
external stuff name MiKTeX which asked for permission to continue:

 * either in the process of MikTeX install itself (in English, AFAIR)
 * or in the process of background update when I asked for UserGuide 
compilation: Windows Defender opened a popup to ask if I trusted MiKTeX, and 
this for each package.


So the average user cannot ignore that LyX requires MiKTeX, and is bored by 
messages about it, so I really do not see how a further message at the beginning 
of the installation process would really affect him more.


Here is a proposal:

"LyX is going to update MiKTeX to the last 2.9 version.
"If you do not use MiKTeX with other applications than LyX, you can continue 
safely.
"If you do use MiKTeX with other applications and do not want to update it right 
now or want to perform the update yourself, you may postpone LyX installation

"  Later  Continue

I can provide a French translation of this very quickly if needed.

As a general comment, I would strongly support a full LaTeX distribution install 
process rather than an update on the fly, I never did LaTeX updates between 
releases when I was in charge of the LaTeX distribution management in my lab 
(->2008, teTeX then TeXLive on Unix, and proTeXt on Windows). proTeXt size is 
currently 2.6Go, and is not prone to updates between TL versions.


--
Jean-Pierre

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

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. It doesn't 
help me that they don't understand a dialog, press cancel and later 
screw up their MiKTeX. Yes, LyX is then not guilty but for the users 
this is not important - they cannot use LyX anymore.


>> Maybe less than 1 per 1000 users might
>> forbid a MiKTeX update and thus stop the installation of LyX because 
>> they think it could maybe make problem.

>
> Even if the user chooses to continue the installation, there is still 
 > a benefit of the dialog in that they are more aware that MiKTeX was

> updated and in fact they chose for it to happen.

It is not, it only make things worse. Every dialog can cause confusions. 
You are only looking from your professional view and I failed to make 
this clear. Can't you see that the majority doesn't know what a package 
is? Most of my students and colleagues didn't know this but were able to 
write their master or Ph.D. thesis with LyX.
Therefore giving users a choice they don't understand is a problem. What 
is if they deny to install LyX, continue using LyX 2.2.x and screw up 
their MiKTeX?
Who has a chance to fix a broken package or similar? Those who know what 
a package is. These guys have the knowledge to forbid any update if they 
like to and the installer lets them do this. Average users would be lost 
with their screwed-up LaTeX. Therefore I made my decision.


I think you should respect that the guy who builds the installer and 
provides support in case of a problem with it has good reasons. We spoke 
about the topic, I red your arguments but stay with my decision. It is 
my spare time in case of problems so I am the one risking something. I 
thought about it a lot to be as safe as possible for most users.


I explained now in a dozen mails my decision. Feel free to add whatever 
you like in the release notes. Feel also free not to announce the Win 
installer officially or not to put it in ftp.lyx.org.


Let's end the debate. Please make your decision and let's focus in LyX 
2.3.1.


thanks and regards
Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Heck]

On 03/11/2018 01:12 PM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 04:34:49PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
>> Am 11.03.2018 um 05:08 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
>>
 So there are already 3 possible workarounds for experienced users in the 
 LyX
 installer and these options are all translated.
>>> That behavior sounds good. My concern though is that even experienced
>>> users will not guess that LyX will update MiKTeX. Once they realize, it
>>> may be too late.
>> Can we please focus on the basics?
> 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. You disagree.
> This is the basic disagreement we must focus on. From this disagreement,
> everything else follows. The only decision we need to make as a group is
> whether to provide this extra dialog or not.

I cannot for the life of me see why adding a warning that proceeding
with the installation will require updating MikTeX, and giving the user
the option to abort the installation, could cause any problems at all.
If there's a worry that this will confuse some users, then we could add
text that says something like: If you do not use LaTeX outside of LyX,
then it is safe for you to proceed.

Richard

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 04:34:49PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 11.03.2018 um 05:08 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> 
> > > So there are already 3 possible workarounds for experienced users in the 
> > > LyX
> > > installer and these options are all translated.
> > 
> > That behavior sounds good. My concern though is that even experienced
> > users will not guess that LyX will update MiKTeX. Once they realize, it
> > may be too late.
> 
> Can we please focus on the basics?

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. You disagree.
This is the basic disagreement we must focus on. From this disagreement,
everything else follows. The only decision we need to make as a group is
whether to provide this extra dialog or not.

> Maybe less than 1 per 1000 users might
> forbid a MiKTeX update and thus stop the installation of LyX because they
> think it could maybe make problem.

Even if the user chooses to continue the installation, there is still a
benefit of the dialog in that they are more aware that MiKTeX was
updated and in fact they chose for it to happen.

> Therefore I won't bother the other 999
> users with a dialog from which maybe 500 users don't understand what is
> meant by the dialog (unknown words/concept and only in English).

I think we need to write the dialog carefully. How about the following
dialog:

If you continue with the installation, LyX will update your MiKTeX LaTeX
installation.

[continue]  [cancel]

We could perhaps have a "more button" with more details for those who
are interested.

> Experienced user have already 3 methods to avoid any MiKTeX update and get
> LyX (for the costs that LyX might not be work). So as they are experts, they
> know what to do. The installer give power users already this freedom.

I'm not only worried about experienced users. There are many people who
use LaTeX outside of LyX. Some of those have very little knowledge of
what a LaTeX packaging system does, and some have little knowledge of
Windows. Just because someone uses LaTeX outside of LyX does not make
them a power computer user.

> Please try the installer on your own to see what is possible in what
> installation state.

I'm not doubting the 3 methods you've mentioned. As I already stated, I
think that is good those options are available.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 11/03/2018 à 03:48, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :
Your argumentation is like I decided to drive with a car. If the fuel is 
empty I have to refuel it because I want to drive. No fuel - no drive. 


It is more like the following: your are invited at my home for the 
week-end and we decide to use the car a bit. You tell me "Trust me, I'll 
prepare everything". Then we have this nice car trip, but in the 
evening, when there is a storm and the power goes down, I realize that 
you have taken all the fuel I had kept for the engine generator to make 
sure that our trip is _really_ nice.


And then I do not invite you at home anymore :)

JMarc

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 11/03/2018 à 03:48, Uwe Stöhr a écrit :
Your argumentation is like I decided to drive with a car. If the fuel is 
empty I have to refuel it because I want to drive. No fuel - no drive. 


It is more like the following: your are invited at my home for the 
week-end and we decide to use the car a bit. You tell me "Trust me, I'll 
prepare everything". Then we have this nice car trip, but in the 
evening, when there is a storm and the power goes down, I realize that 
you have taken all the fuel I had kept for the engine generator to make 
sure that our trip is _really_ nice.


And then I do not invite you at home anymore :)

JMarc

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 11.03.2018 um 05:08 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


So there are already 3 possible workarounds for experienced users in the LyX
installer and these options are all translated.


That behavior sounds good. My concern though is that even experienced
users will not guess that LyX will update MiKTeX. Once they realize, it
may be too late.


Can we please focus on the basics? Maybe less than 1 per 1000 users 
might forbid a MiKTeX update and thus stop the installation of LyX 
because they think it could maybe make problem. Therefore I won't bother 
the other 999 users with a dialog from which maybe 500 users don't 
understand what is meant by the dialog (unknown words/concept and only 
in English).


Experienced user have already 3 methods to avoid any MiKTeX update and 
get LyX (for the costs that LyX might not be work). So as they are 
experts, they know what to do. The installer give power users already 
this freedom.
Please try the installer on your own to see what is possible in what 
installation state.



Here are a few reports from me regarding documents that used to compile
that failed after updates.


These were bugs in LaTeX packages affecting all users, no matter if they 
use LyX, what TeX distro and what OS they are using.

LyX cannot take care for other TeX programs. It is unknown how they access
LaTeX (elevated rights or not, local installation or global, parallel
secondary MiKTeX or parallel TeXLive - too many possibilities). Nevertheless
an update of MiKTeX does not change any path or registry setting so other
TeX programs should work. If not they have most likely a bug or need to be
updated if they access the MiKTeX package handling. On my test system the
other TeX program "TeXworks" works fine after the update of MiKTeX.


I'm more worried that a forced package update could cause compilation in
another TeX program to fail.


You already cited my reply to your statement.

regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 02:48:03AM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 11.03.2018 um 01:29 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> 
> > I think our main point of difference is below. If the LyX 2.3.0
> > installer successfully installs LyX, but has a bad secondary effect, I'm
> > guessing you would agree that a dialog would make sense, right?
> 
> I am not the developer of MiKTeX but I see that its recent package handling
> update make problems. Please don't blame me for things I cannot change.
> It is like it is - without updating MiKTeX no LyX. And even worse, for some 
> LyX
> users it is enough to reconfigure LyX to break MiKTeX. A MiKTeX update
> results in package updates. All not my fault.

I agree it is not your fault. We are all in this together. We are going
to release LyX 2.3.0 as a team. If we ship the Windows installer
according to a decision we make as a team, then it is all of our
responsibility. If we present a dialog saying that we will update
MiKTeX, and the user clicks "Continue" (or whatever the choice is), then
if they run into problems, it shifts some responsibility to the user
because we gave them the choice.

> I made the best out of it and found a solution. With this users who already
> broke their LaTeX will get it repaired.

Yes and I think that is great. But I think there is a chance it could
break for others. By providing a dialog, we can solve both issues.

> I don't want to focus on a possible but not very probable case of a package
> on CTAN having a regression bug. If this happens, it would affect all users
> of this package, independent of the TeX distribution and OS. The experience
> is that such bugs are fixed within days because they affect so many.

I have not had this experience. First, some bugs only manifest with
certain package combinations. Second, maybe the update fixes a bug, but
because you worked around that bug in your TeX code, your code now
fails.

> Your argumentation is like I decided to drive with a car. If the fuel is
> empty I have to refuel it because I want to drive. No fuel - no drive. You
> argue that people can choose not to refuel. But they decided to drive so why
> should they not to refuel. (because they don't have money for the fuel but
> our fuel is for free)

To make that analogy (at least from my perspective), the fuel would have
to have the potential to break something in the car.

> MiKTeX is the fuel. Experienced users can select "never" in the MiKTeX
> settings to prevent any change of their system. If they have both installed,
> MiKTeX and TeXLive, they can also select in the LyX installer which TeX
> distribution should be used. They can even select not to use LaTeX at all in
> the installer.
> So there are already 3 possible workarounds for experienced users in the LyX
> installer and these options are all translated.

That behavior sounds good. My concern though is that even experienced
users will not guess that LyX will update MiKTeX. Once they realize, it
may be too late.

> > My claim comes from personal experience and from helping users.
> 
> With all respect, I doubt your first statement. From your mails I read out
> that you have never run the LyX Win installer by yourself. Otherwise you
> would know what options you can select in the installer. I also doubt that
> you are familiar with MiKTeX, its settings and options.

Sorry for not being specific. I was talking about my experience with
updated LaTeX packages. Indeed, I do not have experience with MiKTeX.
But I have seen CTAN package updates break things for me, break things
for others, and break the compilation of some of our manuals/examples.

Here are a few reports from me regarding documents that used to compile
that failed after updates. My reports include minimal examples but the
original issue came in most cases from LyX documents:

https://sourceforge.net/p/pgf/bugs/296/
http://tug.org/pipermail/luatex/2015-April/005163.html
http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2015-April/036640.html
http://tug.org/pipermail/tex-live/2016-January/037586.html

> >- Some Windows users might use LaTeX directly, in addition to LyX.
> >- Updating MiKTeX could break compilation of current documents in a TeX
>   editor outside of LyX.
> 
> LyX cannot take care for other TeX programs. It is unknown how they access
> LaTeX (elevated rights or not, local installation or global, parallel
> secondary MiKTeX or parallel TeXLive - too many possibilities). Nevertheless
> an update of MiKTeX does not change any path or registry setting so other
> TeX programs should work. If not they have most likely a bug or need to be
> updated if they access the MiKTeX package handling. On my test system the
> other TeX program "TeXworks" works fine after the update of MiKTeX.

I'm more worried that a forced package update could cause compilation in
another TeX program to fail.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 11.03.2018 um 01:29 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


I think our main point of difference is below. If the LyX 2.3.0
installer successfully installs LyX, but has a bad secondary effect, I'm
guessing you would agree that a dialog would make sense, right?


I am not the developer of MiKTeX but I see that its recent package 
handling update make problems. Please don't blame me for things I cannot 
change. It is like it is - without updating MiKTeX no LyX. And even 
worse, for some LyX users it is enough to reconfigure LyX to break 
MiKTeX. A MiKTeX update results in package updates. All not my fault.


I made the best out of it and found a solution. With this users who 
already broke their LaTeX will get it repaired.


I don't want to focus on a possible but not very probable case of a 
package on CTAN having a regression bug. If this happens, it would 
affect all users of this package, independent of the TeX distribution 
and OS. The experience is that such bugs are fixed within days because 
they affect so many.


Your argumentation is like I decided to drive with a car. If the fuel is 
empty I have to refuel it because I want to drive. No fuel - no drive. 
You argue that people can choose not to refuel. But they decided to 
drive so why should they not to refuel. (because they don't have money 
for the fuel but our fuel is for free)
MiKTeX is the fuel. Experienced users can select "never" in the MiKTeX 
settings to prevent any change of their system. If they have both 
installed, MiKTeX and TeXLive, they can also select in the LyX installer 
which TeX distribution should be used. They can even select not to use 
LaTeX at all in the installer.
So there are already 3 possible workarounds for experienced users in the 
LyX installer and these options are all translated.


> My claim comes from personal experience and from helping users.

With all respect, I doubt your first statement. From your mails I read 
out that you have never run the LyX Win installer by yourself. Otherwise 
you would know what options you can select in the installer. I also 
doubt that you are familiar with MiKTeX, its settings and options.


>- Some Windows users might use LaTeX directly, in addition to LyX.
>- Updating MiKTeX could break compilation of current documents in a TeX
  editor outside of LyX.

LyX cannot take care for other TeX programs. It is unknown how they 
access LaTeX (elevated rights or not, local installation or global, 
parallel secondary MiKTeX or parallel TeXLive - too many possibilities). 
Nevertheless an update of MiKTeX does not change any path or registry 
setting so other TeX programs should work. If not they have most likely 
a bug or need to be updated if they access the MiKTeX package handling. 
On my test system the other TeX program "TeXworks" works fine after the 
update of MiKTeX.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 10.03.2018 um 21:37 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:

Meanwhile I got the report that version 4 of the LyX Win installer fails 
on some 64bit Windows. I am currently working on this and will most 
probably come up with another version of the installer that fixes this.


I could fix this now. I indeed forgot to check for 64bit MiKTeX.

Version 5 of the installer fixes this and is available as usual here:
http://ftp.lyx.de/LyXWinInstaller/LyX2.3.0/

regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:25:12AM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 11.03.2018 um 00:57 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> 
> > If in the LyX 2.3.0 installer we provide an informative dialog, the user
> > might say "oh I did not know that LyX needed to update MiKTeX. I will
> > not install LyX now because I need to submit my paper tomorrow. After I
> > submit my paper, I can deal with an updated MiKTeX and fix any problems
> > that come from updated LaTeX packages so I will install LyX 2.3.0 at
> > that time".
> 
> Why do you claim that an update of MiKTeX's package handling introduces
> problems with LaTeX packages? I run all LyX files I have on my disc with the
> LyX 2.3.0 and don't get any compilation error.
> I already wrote that I don't like these claims.

My claim comes from personal experience and from helping users. I often
come across users who say "this used to work before!", and what we find
out is that it was an update that caused something to break.

> Why do you come up with such constructed examples?

Because I think examples help illustrate points, in addition to making
abstract arguments. I agree that at some point we have to also discuss
whether the example is realistic or not.

> The use case of an
> installer is to install. However:
> 
> - If I have to submit a paper tomorrow I will fur sure not upgrade  the
> software. For Word or LibreOffice you won't do this as well.
> - Even if you decided to install LyX 2.3.0 you made a decision - you want to
> have LyX.

I agree, but you do not know that having LyX also means updating MiKTeX.

> And with the installer you get it.

But you might get more than what you expected.

> - You expect people to have a lot of background knowledge and that they
> understand English well. Both is not the case for many if not most users. I
> also don't like that I have to issue the dialog with the OK button because
> not everybody will understand what this means since "MiKTeX" or "package"
> are not common for many users. Moreover the dialog is only in English. I
> decided to pop it up because an update can take several minutes (for example
> if you run the last update a year ago or never run an update) and if people
> think nothing is happening they might close the installer during the update
> process. The installer for 2.3.1 will of course return to the old installer
> behavior.

As mentioned before, I do not take the dialog lightly. Having the dialog
comes with its own costs. I agree that it could cause confusion. It is
just that I think the benefit of the dialog outweighs the costs. This is
my opinion, and I can see how others would disagree. That's why I think
it's good to get as many opinions as possible and make a decision as a
group.

> Allow me to continue your constructed case: The user denies any update and
> therefore don't get LyX 2.3.0. But he maybe reconfigure LyX 2.2.x and as
> result he cannot compile his document because LaTeX got broken. If he runs
> my LyX 2.3.0 installer he can afterwards also reconfigure his LyX 2.2.x
> without risking anything.

I think that's a good point. In my constructed case, I was talking about
a user who mainly uses LaTeX directly, instead of through LyX. My logic
goes as follows:

- Some Windows users might use LaTeX directly, in addition to LyX.
- Updating MiKTeX could break compilation of current documents in a TeX
  editor outside of LyX.
- Therefore, there could be a cost to someone who installs LyX 2.3.0.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 12:04:38AM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 11.03.2018 um 00:57 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> 
> > I believe their goal is to get a working LyX, but they are not aware
> > that they might be paying a cost. They might not want to update MiKTeX,
> > and they should not expect that LyX is going to update MiKTeX. Thus,
> > although they might want a working LyX, they might not want their MiKTeX
> > to change, or at least not at that time.
> 
> Then they don't get a working LyX. That is not the idea of an installer. If
> you run such a program, you expect that it installs LyX.
> So I as user of an installer already made a decision: I want to have LyX
> installed.
> Sorry that I don't get your point.

I think our main point of difference is below. If the LyX 2.3.0
installer successfully installs LyX, but has a bad secondary effect, I'm
guessing you would agree that a dialog would make sense, right? If yes,
we can forget about this sub-discussion, and focus on whether updating
MiKTeX without consent is actually a cost or not to the user. If you
would still not agree even in the case where you are convinced of the
bad secondary effect, then we should still continue this sub-debate.

> I also cannot see costs. What is in your opinion the cost of having a
> working package handling system? All your personal settings are not touched
> by the update.

I think you have indeed narrowed it down to this root disagreement: you
don't think that updating MiKTeX could have a cost to the user, and I
do. I'll respond to the other email you just sent.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 11.03.2018 um 00:57 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


If in the LyX 2.3.0 installer we provide an informative dialog, the user
might say "oh I did not know that LyX needed to update MiKTeX. I will
not install LyX now because I need to submit my paper tomorrow. After I
submit my paper, I can deal with an updated MiKTeX and fix any problems
that come from updated LaTeX packages so I will install LyX 2.3.0 at
that time".


Why do you claim that an update of MiKTeX's package handling introduces 
problems with LaTeX packages? I run all LyX files I have on my disc with 
the LyX 2.3.0 and don't get any compilation error.

I already wrote that I don't like these claims.

Why do you come up with such constructed examples? The use case of an 
installer is to install. However:


- If I have to submit a paper tomorrow I will fur sure not upgrade  the 
software. For Word or LibreOffice you won't do this as well.
- Even if you decided to install LyX 2.3.0 you made a decision - you 
want to have LyX. And with the installer you get it.
- You expect people to have a lot of background knowledge and that they 
understand English well. Both is not the case for many if not most 
users. I also don't like that I have to issue the dialog with the OK 
button because not everybody will understand what this means since 
"MiKTeX" or "package" are not common for many users. Moreover the dialog 
is only in English. I decided to pop it up because an update can take 
several minutes (for example if you run the last update a year ago or 
never run an update) and if people think nothing is happening they might 
close the installer during the update process. The installer for 2.3.1 
will of course return to the old installer behavior.


Allow me to continue your constructed case: The user denies any update 
and therefore don't get LyX 2.3.0. But he maybe reconfigure LyX 2.2.x 
and as result he cannot compile his document because LaTeX got broken. 
If he runs my LyX 2.3.0 installer he can afterwards also reconfigure his 
LyX 2.2.x without risking anything.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 11.03.2018 um 00:57 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


I believe their goal is to get a working LyX, but they are not aware
that they might be paying a cost. They might not want to update MiKTeX,
and they should not expect that LyX is going to update MiKTeX. Thus,
although they might want a working LyX, they might not want their MiKTeX
to change, or at least not at that time.


Then they don't get a working LyX. That is not the idea of an installer. 
If you run such a program, you expect that it installs LyX.
So I as user of an installer already made a decision: I want to have LyX 
installed.

Sorry that I don't get your point.

I also cannot see costs. What is in your opinion the cost of having a 
working package handling system? All your personal settings are not 
touched by the update.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 11:53:36PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 10.03.2018 um 21:37 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
> 
> > I understand what you wrote but not your goal behind it.
> > I use the LyX installer to install LyX. Therefore I expect a working LyX
> > afterwards.
> 
> In other words:
> 
> - we agree that users who run an installer of LyX want
>  * to get LyX
>  * a working LyX
> So the goal for the installer is to achieve this.

Yes, I agree with the above. I think many of us also believe that we
have the additional goal of allowing users to control when their
software undergoes a major updated.

> - If you have another method to achieve this than the one I am using for the
> installer, please tell me the steps the installer should do and in what
> order.
> 
> I don't see another solution than what the installer I prepared does.

I think that adding a dialog solves the same goal you mentioned above,
plus the additional goal I mentioned above.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 08:37:30PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 09.03.2018 um 18:33 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> 
> > Do you understand the argument that I, Richard, Jean-Marc, and racoon
> > have expressed (to those I cite, please correct me if I misrepresent
> > your opinion)?
> 
> I understand what you wrote but not your goal behind it.

OK this is good to know.

> I use the LyX installer to install LyX. Therefore I expect a working LyX
> afterwards.
> 
> What you propose it to let the user choose,

Yes.

> but there is nothing to choose.
> If they don't want to install LyX they would not use the LyX installer. So
> if the LyX installer does what you want and let the user deny the update,
> they won't get a working LyX. But if their goal was not to get a working LyX
> then installing LyX makes no sense.

I believe their goal is to get a working LyX, but they are not aware
that they might be paying a cost. They might not want to update MiKTeX,
and they should not expect that LyX is going to update MiKTeX. Thus,
although they might want a working LyX, they might not want their MiKTeX
to change, or at least not at that time.

There are many users who use LaTeX outside of LyX. Some people only
install LyX to work with other people who use LyX, but use a LaTeX
editor for their main work. There are many reasons why these people
might not want to update MiKTeX. In general, updates break things. It's
up to the user to decide when is a good time to update. Perhaps a user
is about to submit a paper to a journal tomorrow. They might install LyX
2.3.0 today because their coauthor asked them to, but they should not
expect LyX to update MiKTeX. If LyX updates MiKTeX, this could break
LaTeX compilation for the user outside of LyX. There are so many
regressions in LaTeX packages, especially when considering all of the
complex interactions between LaTeX packages. Updates break things.

If in the LyX 2.3.0 installer we provide an informative dialog, the user
might say "oh I did not know that LyX needed to update MiKTeX. I will
not install LyX now because I need to submit my paper tomorrow. After I
submit my paper, I can deal with an updated MiKTeX and fix any problems
that come from updated LaTeX packages so I will install LyX 2.3.0 at
that time".

For example, I do not update TeX Live often. I wait until I'm at a time
where I can deal with something breaking when I update.

In summary, updates break things. If possible, the user should have
control over what is updated and when. Here, I claim that it is possible
and at the cost of a dialog. I do not take this cost lightly.  An extra
dialog comes with the possibility for confusion, and for users to say
"What does this mean? Why doesn't it just install it. Why is it asking
me questions?" Nonetheless, my personal opinion is that the dialog is
worth that cost.

> > Only once both sides understand the argument of the other, without
> > judgement, without comparing, just *understanding*, can we actually move
> > to the next step of coming up with a solution.
> 
> I already have the solution and the user feedback is positive. So why do you
> think there is no solution?
> task: installing results in a fully functional LyX
> solution: the LyX installer I created

You are right, you did propose a solution. I should have have phrased it
as "choosing a solution". From what I understand, there are two
solutions:

1. installer-4
2. installer-4 + a dialog at the beginning.

> Meanwhile I got the report that version 4 of the LyX Win installer fails on
> some 64bit Windows. I am currently working on this and will most probably
> come up with another version of the installer that fixes this.

Thanks for looking into it.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 10.03.2018 um 21:37 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:


I understand what you wrote but not your goal behind it.
I use the LyX installer to install LyX. Therefore I expect a working LyX 
afterwards.


In other words:

- we agree that users who run an installer of LyX want
 * to get LyX
 * a working LyX
So the goal for the installer is to achieve this.

- If you have another method to achieve this than the one I am using for 
the installer, please tell me the steps the installer should do and in 
what order.


I don't see another solution than what the installer I prepared does.

regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 09.03.2018 um 18:33 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


Do you understand the argument that I, Richard, Jean-Marc, and racoon
have expressed (to those I cite, please correct me if I misrepresent
your opinion)?


I understand what you wrote but not your goal behind it.
I use the LyX installer to install LyX. Therefore I expect a working LyX 
afterwards.


What you propose it to let the user choose, but there is nothing to 
choose. If they don't want to install LyX they would not use the LyX 
installer. So if the LyX installer does what you want and let the user 
deny the update, they won't get a working LyX. But if their goal was not 
to get a working LyX then installing LyX makes no sense.



Only once both sides understand the argument of the other, without
judgement, without comparing, just *understanding*, can we actually move
to the next step of coming up with a solution.


I already have the solution and the user feedback is positive. So why do 
you think there is no solution?

task: installing results in a fully functional LyX
solution: the LyX installer I created

---

Meanwhile I got the report that version 4 of the LyX Win installer fails 
on some 64bit Windows. I am currently working on this and will most 
probably come up with another version of the installer that fixes this.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Heck]

On 03/09/2018 09:16 AM, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 09.03.2018 um 05:58 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:
>
>> Am 09.03.2018 um 05:34 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
>>
>>>  From what I understand, I think we still need to come to an
>>> agreement on
>>> whether to provide a dialog to the user asking if they would like to
>>> either cancel the installation or proceed and have the installer update
>>> MiKTeX.
>>
>> Please, I wrote now so many mails explaining the situation! I cannot
>> do more.
>
> The feedback from user Elloh on the list encourages me to act. His
> screwed MiKTeX was the result that the installer for LyX 2.2.3 cannot
> update the system, even if you choose during the installation process
> to do so. Therefore I fear that users installing LyX 2.2.3 will get
> similar problems.
>
> Richard, can I release a new installer for LyX 2.2.3 or do you release
> 2.2.4 within few days?

We will be releasing 2.2.4 shortly.

Richard

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 04:58:07AM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 09.03.2018 um 05:34 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> 
> >  From what I understand, I think we still need to come to an agreement on
> > whether to provide a dialog to the user asking if they would like to
> > either cancel the installation or proceed and have the installer update
> > MiKTeX.
> 
> Please, I wrote now so many mails explaining the situation! I cannot do
> more.

I agree that you cannot do more explaining. Thank you very much for your
detailed explanations.

What I ask is that you do more understanding. I have put a lot of effort
into understanding your logic and your argument for why you think that
silently updating MiKTeX is a reasonable thing to do. To me the logic
and the end value of your argument is noble: If we do not update MiKTeX,
the user will not have a workable LyX experience; therefore, we should
update MiKTeX. That logic makes sense to me and is a valid argument.

Do you understand the argument that I, Richard, Jean-Marc, and racoon
have expressed (to those I cite, please correct me if I misrepresent
your opinion)? Do you think it has a noble goal and a valid argument? If
you do not understand our argument, then it is us that should do more
explaining. If you have a specific question regarding the argument,
please feel free to ask. Otherwise it is hard to know what specific part
of the argument we should expand on.

Only once both sides understand the argument of the other, without
judgement, without comparing, just *understanding*, can we actually move
to the next step of coming up with a solution.

Thanks to everyone for their involvement in this discussion. It is not
fun for anyone, and I know that everyone has the best experience of
users as their goal.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 09.03.2018 um 05:58 schrieb Uwe Stöhr:


Am 09.03.2018 um 05:34 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


 From what I understand, I think we still need to come to an agreement on
whether to provide a dialog to the user asking if they would like to
either cancel the installation or proceed and have the installer update
MiKTeX.


Please, I wrote now so many mails explaining the situation! I cannot do 
more.


The feedback from user Elloh on the list encourages me to act. His 
screwed MiKTeX was the result that the installer for LyX 2.2.3 cannot 
update the system, even if you choose during the installation process to 
do so. Therefore I fear that users installing LyX 2.2.3 will get similar 
problems.


Richard, can I release a new installer for LyX 2.2.3 or do you release 
2.2.4 within few days?


thanks and regards
Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 09.03.2018 um 05:34 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


 From what I understand, I think we still need to come to an agreement on
whether to provide a dialog to the user asking if they would like to
either cancel the installation or proceed and have the installer update
MiKTeX.


Please, I wrote now so many mails explaining the situation! I cannot do 
more.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:45:48PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 08.03.2018 um 22:19 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> 
> > Unfortunately I think the MiKTeX issues also affect the installer (see
> > the email from Uwe on Feb. 26).
> 
> I just post that all known issues have been fixed from my Windows

That's great the MiKTeX issues have been fixed. Thanks for the new
installer.

> perspective. You can in my opinion go an release.

From what I understand, I think we still need to come to an agreement on
whether to provide a dialog to the user asking if they would like to
either cancel the installation or proceed and have the installer update
MiKTeX.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[racoon]

I just tried the windows installer. Here is what it does (no evaluation 
intended since I probably don't understand enough of this).


1. LyX installs fine.

2. The user is not asked whether to update MiKTeX or cancel the setup.

3. There are a couple of messages that seem fine but are also a bit 
strange (see below).


Daniel

 below 

Package "miktex-bin-2.9" is up to date.

Sorry, but "MiKTeX Package Manager" did not succeed for the following 
reason:


  Package "miktex-console-bin-2.9" is already installed.

The log file hopefully contains the information to get MiKTeX going again:

  C:/Users/Daniel/AppData/Local/MiKTeX/2.9/miktex/log/mpmcli.log

You may want to visit the MiKTeX project page, if you need help.

Sorry, but "MiKTeX Package Manager" did not succeed.

The log file hopefully contains the information to get MiKTeX going again:

  C:/Users/Daniel/AppData/Local/MiKTeX/2.9/miktex/log/mpmcli.log

You may want to visit the MiKTeX project page, if you need help.
There are currently no updates available.

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 08.03.2018 um 22:19 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


Unfortunately I think the MiKTeX issues also affect the installer (see
the email from Uwe on Feb. 26).


I just post that all known issues have been fixed from my Windows 
perspective. You can in my opinion go an release.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 09:10:49PM +, Richard Heck wrote:

> Did you suggest at one point releasing just the installer and not the
> bundle? Can we do that? It seems unfortunate to delay the release
> altogether just because MiKTeX has bugs.

Unfortunately I think the MiKTeX issues also affect the installer (see
the email from Uwe on Feb. 26).

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Richard Heck]

On 03/08/2018 12:08 AM, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 08:26:17PM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote:
>
>> If we do not go forward with the release as discussed in the preceding
>> paragraph, another question is: should we wait another few days to see
>> if we are ready to release the Windows binaries so we can announce
>> everything together, or should we announce without the Windows binaries?
> I'm still interested in your thoughts on the above. From what I
> understand, there are still pending MiKTeX bugs for which we are waiting
> for fixes. Releasing now without the Windows binaries would take some
> pressure off: We can wait for the MiKTeX bug fixes, produce a new
> installer, and get some testing of the installer without rushing and
> without delaying the rest of the 2.3.0 release.
>
> On the other hand, of course it is nice to release everything together,
> and releasing without Windows binaries might cause some confusion to
> users.

Did you suggest at one point releasing just the installer and not the
bundle? Can we do that? It seems unfortunate to delay the release
altogether just because MiKTeX has bugs.

Richard

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 08:26:17PM +, Scott Kostyshak wrote:

> If we do not go forward with the release as discussed in the preceding
> paragraph, another question is: should we wait another few days to see
> if we are ready to release the Windows binaries so we can announce
> everything together, or should we announce without the Windows binaries?

I'm still interested in your thoughts on the above. From what I
understand, there are still pending MiKTeX bugs for which we are waiting
for fixes. Releasing now without the Windows binaries would take some
pressure off: We can wait for the MiKTeX bug fixes, produce a new
installer, and get some testing of the installer without rushing and
without delaying the rest of the 2.3.0 release.

On the other hand, of course it is nice to release everything together,
and releasing without Windows binaries might cause some confusion to
users.

What are your thoughts? Has any similar issue come up in the past?

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 07/03/2018 à 16:24, Scott Kostyshak a écrit :

However, you can use LyX also without LaTeX. The LyX installer provides an
option for this. This way you can try around and maybe later install LaTeX.
A later installed LaTeX (TeXLive or MiKTeX) can be found by LyX if the path
to the latex.exe is in the PATH environment variable. Therefore you must
install LaTeX with admin privileges and set the option to modify the PATH
(if your LaTeX installer has this).


Ah that is good to know. Thanks for the explanation.


Note however that using LyX without LaTeX is not really a pleasure. One 
gets at each use a dialog box on startup plus  dialog box for each 
loaded file complaining that something is wrong. I have to install 
texlive on my home windows 10 computer just for that (I did not intend 
yet to actually create documents there, I just wanted to debug display 
issues).


While my use case is not important in itself, I think it would be 
worthwhile to allow LyX to work nicely as a pure editor.


Note that none of that is related to the windows port/installer. The 
issue is the same with all OSes.


JMarc

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 03:08:19PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 05.03.2018 um 17:58 schrieb Joel Kulesza:
> 
> > At least, the way I read the step, the installer is the component not
> > finding the latex.exe executable, not the LyX executable itself
> 
> Just for information:
> The LyX installer searches for the latex.exe. If it cannot find it, LyX
> cannot find it as well. If it finds it, it applies the path to it for LyX.
> So the success in finding the latex.exe depends on if the installer could
> find it.
> 
> However, you can use LyX also without LaTeX. The LyX installer provides an
> option for this. This way you can try around and maybe later install LaTeX.
> A later installed LaTeX (TeXLive or MiKTeX) can be found by LyX if the path
> to the latex.exe is in the PATH environment variable. Therefore you must
> install LaTeX with admin privileges and set the option to modify the PATH
> (if your LaTeX installer has this).

Ah that is good to know. Thanks for the explanation.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 05.03.2018 um 17:58 schrieb Joel Kulesza:

At least, the way I read the step, the installer is the component not 
finding the latex.exe executable, not the LyX executable itself


Just for information:
The LyX installer searches for the latex.exe. If it cannot find it, LyX 
cannot find it as well. If it finds it, it applies the path to it for 
LyX. So the success in finding the latex.exe depends on if the installer 
could find it.


However, you can use LyX also without LaTeX. The LyX installer provides 
an option for this. This way you can try around and maybe later install 
LaTeX. A later installed LaTeX (TeXLive or MiKTeX) can be found by LyX 
if the path to the latex.exe is in the PATH environment variable. 
Therefore you must install LaTeX with admin privileges and set the 
option to modify the PATH (if your LaTeX installer has this).


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 03:01:42PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 04.03.2018 um 16:50 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> 
> >The following statements are specific to Windows users:
> > ...
> >- After the installation of LyX, the MiKTeX package manager pops up. You
> >  can just close it.
> 
> This item can be removed. This is now fixed in MiKTeX.

Thanks, I removed it.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 04.03.2018 um 16:50 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


   The following statements are specific to Windows users:
...
   - After the installation of LyX, the MiKTeX package manager pops up. You
 can just close it.


This item can be removed. This is now fixed in MiKTeX.

regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 04:58:37PM +, Joel Kulesza wrote:

> At least, the way I read the step, the installer is the component not
> finding the latex.exe executable, not the LyX executable itself
> post-install (at which point, one couldn't "just close the installer"
> because it would have completed already).  Sorry for the late-breaking
> suggestion.

Makes sense. I made the change in the announce email that will be sent.

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Joel Kulesza]

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 8:50 AM, Scott Kostyshak  wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 11:46:53PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> > Am 03.03.2018 um 21:26 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> >
> > >- If you have a problem compiling the document Help > User Guide
> after
> > >  installation, consider uninstalling LyX and MiKTeX, and then using
> > >  the LyX *bundle* installer, which will automatically reinstall
> > >  MiKTeX.
> >
> > Please replace this point by the text I just sent in my mail with the
> > solution.
>
> OK, here is the Windows-specific part, after taking your and Joel's
> suggestions into account:
>
>   ---
>   The following statements are specific to Windows users:
>   - If you installed a pre-release of LyX 2.3.0, you should uninstall that
> version before installing this newer release.
>   - If you have a virus scanner installed and LyX cannot find "latex.exe",
> as a first step just close the installer and rerun it.
>

Minor suggested wording change to clarify (based on my understanding):

from:

virus scanner installed and LyX cannot find

to:

virus scanner installed and the LyX installer cannot find


At least, the way I read the step, the installer is the component not
finding the latex.exe executable, not the LyX executable itself
post-install (at which point, one couldn't "just close the installer"
because it would have completed already).  Sorry for the late-breaking
suggestion.

- Joel

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 11:46:53PM +, Uwe Stöhr wrote:
> Am 03.03.2018 um 21:26 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:
> 
> >- If you have a problem compiling the document Help > User Guide after
> >  installation, consider uninstalling LyX and MiKTeX, and then using
> >  the LyX *bundle* installer, which will automatically reinstall
> >  MiKTeX.
> 
> Please replace this point by the text I just sent in my mail with the
> solution.

OK, here is the Windows-specific part, after taking your and Joel's
suggestions into account:

  ---
  The following statements are specific to Windows users:
  - If you installed a pre-release of LyX 2.3.0, you should uninstall that
version before installing this newer release.
  - If you have a virus scanner installed and LyX cannot find "latex.exe",
as a first step just close the installer and rerun it.
  - After the installation of LyX, the MiKTeX package manager pops up. You
can just close it.
  - If you cannot get a PDF from a LyX file after installing LyX 2.3.0 under
Windows and the error message you get is that "paths must not contain 
spaces"
or similar, you must do the following:
  1. uninstall LyX 2.3.0
  2. uninstall MiKTeX
  3. reinstall LyX 2.3.0 using the bundle installer
  ---

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

On Sat, Mar 03, 2018 at 11:35:23PM +, Joel Kulesza wrote:

> I recommend reordering so the bullets will be presented in the order the 
> issues must be faced / may be encountered (keeping the dashes but I use 
> numbers to show new order). For example:
> 
> 2, 4, 1, 3
> 
> Note that I haven’t installed on Windows so I’m not sure of the exact order, 
> but 2 should probably come first. 
> 
> Sorry for tenseness/typoes; written on an iPhone with transpacific jet lag. 

OK I will reorder as suggested.

Thanks,

Scott


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Uwe Stöhr]

Am 03.03.2018 um 21:26 schrieb Scott Kostyshak:


   - If you have a problem compiling the document Help > User Guide after
 installation, consider uninstalling LyX and MiKTeX, and then using
 the LyX *bundle* installer, which will automatically reinstall
 MiKTeX.


Please replace this point by the text I just sent in my mail with the 
solution.


regards Uwe

Re: Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Joel Kulesza]

> The current Windows-specific part of the announcement email that I'm
> planning to send is the following:
> 
> ---
> The following statements are specific to Windows users:
> 1 - After the installation of LyX, the MiKTeX package manager pops up.
>You can just close it.
> 2 - If you installed a pre-release of LyX 2.3.0, you should uninstall
>that version before installing this newer release.
> 3 - If you have a problem compiling the document Help > User Guide after
>installation, consider uninstalling LyX and MiKTeX, and then using
>the LyX *bundle* installer, which will automatically reinstall
>MiKTeX.
> 4 - If you have a virus scanner installed and LyX cannot find
>"latex.exe", as a first step just close the installer and rerun it.
> ---

I recommend reordering so the bullets will be presented in the order the issues 
must be faced / may be encountered (keeping the dashes but I use numbers to 
show new order). For example:

2, 4, 1, 3

Note that I haven’t installed on Windows so I’m not sure of the exact order, 
but 2 should probably come first. 

Sorry for tenseness/typoes; written on an iPhone with transpacific jet lag. 

Joel

Update on 2.3.0 situation and Windows-specific issues

[Scott Kostyshak]

Dear all,

The purpose of this email is to summarize the situation with the Windows
installers and discuss as a group the best way to proceed with the
release.

From what I understand, there are two issues with the situation on
Windows:

Issue 1: Problems related to anti-virus programs.
Issue 2: Problems related to MiKTeX.

Regarding issue 1, there have been reports that the LyX binaries have
been detected to contain a trojan or virus. In some cases, after
updating the anti-virus definitions, no problem is detected. I'm
personally convinced that there is trojan or virus, and any report based
on the GPG-signed binaries are false-positives. However, the anti-virus
programs seem to interfere with the installation going correctly. To
address this issue, we provide some advice in the announcement (pasted
below), and I hope that the anti-virus softwares will investigate the
LyX binaries after receiving so many reports and update their databases.
One thing we could do, at least with respect to Microsoft Windows
Defender, is to make an account and provide our binaries, as discussed
here:

  
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid=20180301195117.jd6etggzjlrt2yxg%40steph

The current Windows-specific part of the announcement email that I'm
planning to send is the following:

---
The following statements are specific to Windows users:
  - After the installation of LyX, the MiKTeX package manager pops up.
You can just close it.
  - If you installed a pre-release of LyX 2.3.0, you should uninstall
that version before installing this newer release.
  - If you have a problem compiling the document Help > User Guide after
installation, consider uninstalling LyX and MiKTeX, and then using
the LyX *bundle* installer, which will automatically reinstall
MiKTeX.
  - If you have a virus scanner installed and LyX cannot find
"latex.exe", as a first step just close the installer and rerun it.
---

Regarding issue 2, there seems to be no perfect solution until MiKTeX
fixes some issues on their side. See Uwe's summary here for the relevant
MiKTeX bug reports:

  
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid=f1027f2e-fa33-f698-1e17-5d9b0b587db2%40web.de

As for a non-perfect solution, Uwe has been working hard to figure
something out so we can go forward with the release. One proposal is for
the LyX installer to silently update MiKTeX. See discussion on this
here:

  
https://www.mail-archive.com/search?l=mid=773ea89f-cb68-4e69-cc45-b5cda8a4a474%40lyx.org

I'm still not certain of some things. Let's figure out a few simple
facts so we can figure out options. Uwe, does LyX 2.3.0 require an
updated MiKTeX to work properly? Why is this? If not, can we just not
ship the bundle and only ship the installer? This would require the user
to install MiKTeX or TeX Live on their own so it would not be our
responsibility. I'm pretty sure this is not an option and that I've
misunderstood something but I ask in order to understand better.

Another option is to just release as normal now (with our current
installer and bundler installer). We provide advice in the announcement
(pasted above) for how to handle possible problems, and I'm hoping that
some anti-virus software have already updated their databases, so not as
many users will experience problems. Further, although a significant
proportion of Windows users have reported problems, many have reported
that everything worked fine for them.

If we do not go forward with the release as discussed in the preceding
paragraph, another question is: should we wait another few days to see
if we are ready to release the Windows binaries so we can announce
everything together, or should we announce without the Windows binaries?

Note that I will be gone for Monday and Tuesday.

Please share your opinion on the above issues.

Scott



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature