This puzzles me. The win installer has worked without a hitch (except to ask you to shut down freenet) as long as I've used it. The only difference I've seen recently is twice (not always) reporting a failure to complete a download (check sum error?) and ask if a retry was desired. That I find effective if the transmission was in error, because it does not demand that I wait around for a second try NOW just in case one happens to want to do something else for the next quarter hour (obviously I don't have a T1 connection).
> [Original Message] > From: Paul Derbyshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 1/17/2004 9:15:43 AM > Subject: [freenet-support] Minor installer warts > > Got around to updating to 5061. Installer wart is as follows: when it > reaches its own executable it pops up something I thought had gone > the way of the dodo (and MS-DOS): "abort, retry, ignore". Abort is > rather drastic, and retry can't possibly work, so you have to ignore. > The installer should automatically skip itself. > > This is easily worked around but could confuse some new users and > shows lack of polish. Normally installer problems are automatically > serious as the lack of polish is present from the user's first > impression with the software, but in this case it only will occur the > 2nd and subsequent times the installer is run. :) > > This therefore only rates a 1 on the 1 to 5 Sanjay-Tarantino scale of > bug severity (bugs that bring down the host operating system rating a > 5, of course). > > Or does it? If the installer itself needs updating there could be a > problem. To make the installer updatable, the installer needs to > "chain". The algorithm in widest use is for the installer to have two > stages: the first fetches the second from a fixed location, then > launches this and quits. The second installs everything else > including a fresh version of the first if necessary. Since the first > has quit, the second can overwrite it. When the first overwrites the > second it succeeds since the second hasn't run yet. :) > > On a related note, the installer seems unable to automate shutting > down the node so it can overwrite with new files, even though it has > no problem starting it back up again after. Requiring user > intervention at this stage seems unnecessary and is another potential > source of error that can easily be eliminated. Many web-updatable > apps I've used take already-running instances in stride, and more > than a few even update themselves automatically or with only a > "there's a newer version available. Download and install? Yes, > Cancel" dialog. My current operating system is one of them. :) > This doesn't really rate as a bug at all, but it is one more rough > edge in the installer that can be smoothed over. (Again, it won't > show up the very first time you run the web updater, so it doesn't > give a bad first impression, reducing its already-cosmetic priority.) > > _______________________________________________ > Support mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support _______________________________________________ Support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
