Some cross-platform packages like Ruby or Qt prefer %HOMEDRIVE% as the default installation path, Google Chrome uses something in %HOMEPATH%. What's the advantage and disadvantage of each choice? What's the best choice for a simple private application (i.e. a game, where the installation should work without administrator rights)? On the other end: What would be the best choice for an industrial application (i.e. a software that controls an industrial device, running on a computer that merely exists for that purpose)?
If you want to ensure your app can be installed without Admin privs, install under %LOCALAPPDATA% - if you want to install system-wide, use %ProgramFiles%. Whatever you do, don't use %ProgramFiles(x86)%.
As a general rule I find it hard to believe that a single installation will work for multiple operating systems. From my understanding it seems that you would need multiple different installation files to handle each of the different file systems (not just installation directory, but the actual file system). This will span not just private, and industrial systems, but all business systems as well. Go to the download page for any software that is available for multiple OS and they will have a link for each one.
Related
I have standard instalations of some programs, and althou they are freeware and i can download them and install on any machine, things are not that easy always. When system crash and i dont have working machine or working internet connection or lan card or drivers for lan card i always struggle to find them and make them work if some dependency file is not on that version of windows.
What i need is to know is how can i make applications portable so i can run them from my usb or just copy them from my usb on pc and run, what dependency files application require, and what files and where specific application install?
It's a complicated story but let's try to summarize. Starts from the part "why?"
I'm an obsessive guy who seriously "hates" installers. I love to have a clean system without bloated in files reg entries and DLL's. Thats why I make nearly all (at least 97%) of programs that I use portable. I made more than 600 up to today and what I can say is;
You need:
1- A program to watch file system (what included after installation)
I use this. Simple and straight (sorry not freeware, but you can find tons of alternates)
http://www.samsunsegman.com/um/
2- A program to watch registry (what changed or included after installation)
I use this in HTML mode. Free fast and simple. And portable in nature.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/regshot/
Now scan the system with these 2, and than run the installer. After open the installed program and make your settings as you want. And than use this 2 program to find the added files and registry entries.
For files, delete them to trash can and take them back from trash in batch (easy to do like that) to the folder of application.
Registry, open the related branches in registry, delete any entries containing addressings like (plugins folder = c:\prog.... etc) After right click on main branch and select export. This is your reg settings...
3- Download this program http://ctuser.net/?reg2exe
This will convert your reg file to an exe file.
4- Download this application http://download.cnet.com/FilePacker/3000-2216_4-10414081.html
Note: Click on "Direct Download Link" if not you'll cnet will welcome you with their installer :)
And with this program (I use this because have no interference with any application) pack the program that you want to make portable. In wizard, first choose your reg-exe file after main programs file. Launcher will execute them with this order. And in setting choose "delete after terminate" will delete the extracted files on exit.
You can discover the further details. This helps you to portabilitize nearly 75% of simple applications.
5- For complicated programs or complicated needs you even can make home made loaders like
Before executing the app, put the user files under appdata folder (that I hate)
Put settings in registry (even with dynamically modified "path" addresses)
Choose which to execute (x86 or x64)
Execute in admin mode if needed
Execute the app... And when application is terminated...
Delete the settings from registry
Take the user files from appdata folder and put under programs folder (usb etc) back.
Delete left-over files under the system...
I just wrote these last ones to make you understand how far you can go. And for all these extra tricks, I use just and just bat files. And I convert them to exe also with this software. http://www.f2ko.de/programs.php?lang=en&pid=b2e (also free)
All the softwares that I use except "uninstall manager" are free. And with this technique, amazing but some of programs are running even faster.
Actually you can just use JauntePE or portable apps packer things but... Jaunte and similar sandbox making programs are so slow and not compatible with all. Even causing crashes. Portable apps approach is a bit bloated regarding to my strict spped and size standards. That's why I do it myself about for 10 years (yes even people was not talking about portability)
Note: I'm not a programmer, and you also don't need to be to do these.
I never released my portables, and you also shouldn't (read EULA's) for respect to authors.
But never forget to demand portable version from all authors. Force them to quit installers ;)
Best regards
inovasyon did a great job!
If you want to make some portable app that will work on every computer you move it to, then 99.9% of apps can be made portable.
If you also expect the app to not leave any files, folders or registry entries behind and not change or break things on the host PC's setup, then that limits things a bit further.
Apps requiring admin privileges to write to protected areas of the registry or file system will break when used on PCs with locked-down privileges.
Apps requiring services to be installed on the host PC will often leave them behind.
You must to know there are apps that are locked to specific PCs - Microsoft's recent versions of Office are a great example of this. They simply will not run when moved to another PC.
Also, you'll need some tools for making portable app: cameyo, thinapp, boxedapp, portableapps, spoon, app-v and other.
Portable applications will run from a flash drive, and from the computer.
Good Luck!
Here is a primer for setting up a portable app using the PortableApps.com tools. They have a page for developers that is quite helpful for some specifics, but the overall process is not well summarized. Here is the general outline for creating a portable application:
1. Investigate your application's footprints
Find all the files, registry locations and settings of the application you want to make portable (make use of point (1) and (2) in inovasyon's answer, and maybe take a look at Zsoft). It is usally a good idea to fire-up a virtual machine and track the application's changes without much clutter.
2. The PortableApp generator
Download, extract, and open the PortableApps.com Platform, and follow [The system tray icon] →[Apps] →[Get More Apps] →[By Category] to install the PortableApps.com Launcher, and NSIS (Unicode) needed to Portabilize your app. Alternatively, but with some added hassle, download both the PortableApps.com Launcher and NSIS Portable (Unicode version) as standalones.
You can now compile a project by running the PortableApps.com Launcher and pointing it to your project.
3. PortableApp layout and structure
Download the PortableApp.com Application Template (search for it here) to structure the data and files obtained in (1.) according to the specifications. Also, download some apps from portableapps.com for some practical examples of how they are structured, and to learn more about the struggles of portability (such as the substitution of drive letters in settings files to correspond to the movement of a portable drive).
As a "Hello World" example, try portability this simple program: helloworld.bat, with content:
#echo off
echo Hello World > log.txt
It writes all local environmental variables to the log file log.txt. You can play around a bit by trying to writing files to an %APPDATA% subdirectory and see if you can make your project redirect it to a portable directory.
4. Additional usage
If you need to do some additional coding that is not achievable with the default .ini capabilities (such as forcing only one instance of an app), add a NSIS script with file location App\AppInfo\Launcher\Custom.nsh to your project. Note that PortableApps.com's custom code guide incorrectly states the file location as Other\Source\Custom.nsh. It is also quite unhelpful regarding the layout of this script. Rather look at examples from other Apps and learn the NSIS syntax by Google-ing a bit.
What are the benefits and downsides of installing an application in the user's AppData directory?
I assume that installing in AppData will let users in restricted environments be able to install and use the application.
One of the benefits of installing to Program Files is that is exactly where the user expects it to go. Usually users go here first to look where the program is installed. The biggest downside is that the user needs administrative privileges, which isn't always required by the program.
You are correct in assuming installing to AppData will let restricted users install and use the application. It also will follow the user around on network systems, allowing them to have access to the program from any machine they log into with the same account. This is also a downside however since it means 2 or 3 users on a machine will have 2 or 3 versions of it installed.
Google installs its products to AppData, which is great since it can then be installed by any user (including at schools where the computers are stuck with IE6 or something).
You should use AppData for any configuration, or program files that will change with the program. I personally prefer installing programs to Program Files, because that's where users assume it will be installed, and it requires admin permissions, which is usually set for a reason, and abiding by those permissions is just nice for an app to do. Ultimately it's up to you, but the default should probably just be Program Files.
Generally appears that the "Appdata" directory equates to the user software directory someone might notice using Linux systems; hadn't paid too much attention to the shift from Program Files directory installations toward the increasingly popular Appdata folder, but it slowly dawns on me.
Thread is a bit old, but relevant considering that Windows is still pretty active; Program Files installations are mostly for your touchy apps --the ones that you will want a bit more access control over like maintenance and security apps. Your Appdata folder is pretty much any other "user" specific soft like media players, text editors; etc. The "administrator" of a Windows installation will also benefit from using appdata for "normal" software along the same lines as not installing software in the root directory while administering a Linux, Mac or BSD system.
I know on windows there are a bunch of installer tools you can use to create an installer, but on Mac OS I've seen two ways to install apps:
A DMG file which you download, double-click, then run an application inside - the application typically has you drag an icon to another icon (representing the Applications folder) to install the app
Another type of file which launches an apparently standard installer, which sometimes brings up a warning like "This installer may run a program to determine if you can go ahead with the install"
What's the "standard" way of packaging an app for install on Mac OS? Is one of the above the Apple-recommended way?
Thanks.
Apple is very clearly making the "standard" to be downloading a program from the App Store. This has the benefit of making application installation transparent to the normal user. And, believe it or not, normal people have a lot of trouble with the concept of installing a program. Of course that benefit comes with some costs, but this isn't the place for that debate–there are plenty of other places for that.
Assuming you don't want to or can't go the App Store route, both PKG and DMG are common ways to distribute a program. Use a PKG if you need to install files aside from your application bundle (which should not be a common use case). In all other cases use a DMG that prompts the user to copy the application into the Applications folder. But a lot of your users will not understand that they need to do that (unless your target audience is solely knowledgeable computer users). They will run your application from the disk image. Ideally in this case, your program will detect that it is running from a disk image and offer to copy itself into the Applications folder.
Packages works well. If your deployment process must be kept simple, it is great.
The Quick build consists of dragging your .app onto Package and it is done.
For advanced packaging, you can also provide a certificate.
http://s.sudre.free.fr/Software/Packages/about.html
We're discussing two things:
first and most importantly, the standard method by which the bits of an executable get laid on the disk in a way that's accessible and properly registered by the system
second, the mechanism for preparing the .app, as recommended by Apple
An older marketing page on Apple's site says it's recommended to create packages (so the Installer application can move the bits in place) with the PackageMaker application.
Its usage is described here: mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.25/25.03/2503MacEnterprise-PackagingforSystemAdministrators/index.html.
But as others have mentioned, the elephant in the room is the MacAppStore(MAS for short). Until it's debut, what was standard for large companies was their own custom scripts rolled into an older-style 'bundle' package or using an executable like the VISE installer. Smaller developers usually tried to make their app installable via drag-drop, distributed in zip archives or disk images(for simplicity's sake).
The MAS is different: as of 10.7 it uses a package format (which debuted in 10.5) referred to as a flat package (really a xar archive, explanation here)
which is transferred over http to a hidden folder, installs directly to Applications(after which the temporary folder it is downloaded to is deleted). It drops its receipt and a bill or materials file into /private/var/db, and is therefore audit-able by the built-in command line pkgutil tool, described here: mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.25/25.12/2512MacEnterprise-PackagesReceiptsandSnow/index.html
A benefit of using the flat package format is you can pull things over the network more safely and efficiently, but it isn't as easy to work with as bundle packages if you are testing and modifying the package regularly, or iterating to ensure scripts that perform actions or checks work well. Even when flat, putting the pkg in a archive or disk image is recommended for flexibility. More distribution tools expect DMG's than zip's, so there's that as well.
Besides what Apple recommends and what is standard, common practice, there's this article: https://www.afp548.com/2010/06/03/the-commandments-of-packaging-in-os-x/ which discusses the why's and hows (although mainly for system administrators) of packaging for wider distribution. It is greatly recommended to get more of a feel of how and why things go wrong, and what to avoid.
Try Iceberg!
Another one package creator.
In OS X, many applications are just created as a Relocatable
application bundles that the user just need to copy to the
/Application folder (or any other location). In other cases, when you
need to perform some operations over the machine (such as adding users
or changing permissions) you can use a PKG installer (for example built using PackageMaker), which allows
executing some pre and post install scripts and support some basic
installation configuration, like selecting the installation drive.
Sometimes, as with complex server software, you need more flexibility, for example to show custom pages to
the end user requesting information required to install your
application, like the MySQL port and password or proxy information to
download requirements on the fly (or simply to make it look fancier
:)). For this cases there are other installer solutions like our BitRock
InstallBuilder (disclaimer, I'm one of the developers).
InstallBuilder also has the advantage of generating multiplatform
installers using the same project with very little customization per
platform.
I am having issues with finding all of the necessary files to actually install Cygwin correctly when not using the premade setup utility. The reason behind this is the fact that my company computer blocks the usage of the .exe, and won't give me clearance to install it, (they say it isn't needed for the job) but expects me to perform certain tasks that Cygwin would make much simpler.
So my question is thus; is there somewhere/someone that would have a list of packages that I would need to manually install from one of the mirrors to make Cygwin run correctly?
Well,
This is a new answer to an old question, but it might be helpful for someone...
Just run the installer with -B switch, for example:
setup-x86_64.exe -B
You should install it then on a path where you have rights.
If you don't need the full POSIX compatibility (which I'm guessing you don't, if the Unix subsystem isn't required for your job), I'd generally suggest you go with Mingw rather than Cygwin.
Sadly, Mingw also has an installer these days. It probably also requires admin (try it and see). However, you can download the individual components you need if you want to do it that way. That shouldn't require admin, so it would probably get you exactly what you want.
Mingw is also more corporate-friendly from a licensing standpoint, as its compiler doesn't render code built with it GPL like Cygwin's does.
Generally the rule is:
If you want to use Unixy tools to help with your native Windows development, you want Mingw.
If want to port a full (POSIX) Unix program to windows, you want Cygwin (and perhaps a support deal with Red Hat to get around the licensing problem).
There's a writeup on getting Cygwin [to work] on portable storage devices.
Boiling it down, you'd have to do this on a machine that does give you .exe/admin access to write to a 'stick, then run from the stick at work.
On the off-chance that super-lockdown-site allows you to run USB devices.
Use the GNUWIN32 utilities instead. http://gnuwin32.sourceforge.net/
That way you can choose only the .exe installs that you need, and it will be much easier to justify specific utilities than a humongous system install. If you hunt around on the site you can find the files directory where you can download a single utility, and if you get the -bin.zip version, then you can extract just the needed .exe file which would be even easier to justify and would not require your IT people to test an untrusted install package.
Stupid draconian rules or no, I would not recommend trying to thwart your employers rules. Try working to improve the situation or find another one.
But technically speaking if you can get a complete Cygwin install somewhere, you can copy the entire cygwin folder enmasse. There are a few things that you will want to change similarly to how I configured my cygwin installation to run from a thumb drive. I actually installed on my HD, copied it to the thumbdrive and then changed the batch file and a few other things to make it work. Here are the details: http://fadedbluesky.com/2011/portable-cygwin/
You could try installing it on another machine outside of work. After installing, copy the installed product's tree and Registry keys and environment settings to a CD or flash drive. Then you would have a DIY installation that you can copy and import settings manually. The installer doesn't do a whole lot else.
Don't count on job security if you're bypassing IT mandates after being explicitly told no, though. Getting an exception to the rule by submitting proper documentation through the proper process is usually the way to go.
You'll also have to hope that they aren't blocking the Cygwin programs and any Registry edits as well. It's not hard to find this sort of thing on a machine, either.
I just noticed that Chromium was installed in AppData in both Vista and XP. If Google does that and if other applications does this, than is that becuase there is some form of protection? Should we write installers that does the same thing as Google?
Windows still lacks a convention for per-user installation.
When an installer asks whether to install for the current user or all users, it really only refers to shortcut placement (Start Menu; Desktop). The actual application files still go in the system-wide %PROGRAMFILES%.
Microsoft's own ClickOnce works around this by creating a completely non-standard %USERPROFILE%\Local Settings\Apps (%USERPROFILE%\AppData\Roaming on Vista / Server 2008) directory, with both program files and configuration data in there.
(I'm at a loss why Microsoft couldn't add a per-user Program Files directory in Vista. For example, in OS X, you can create a ~/Applications, and the Finder will give it an appropriate icon. Apps like CrossOver and Adobe AIR automatically use that, defaulting to per-user apps. Thus, no permissions issues.)
What you probably should do: if the user is not an admin, install in the user directory; if they do, give them both options.
One advantage nobody mentioned are silent auto-updates. Chrome has an updater process that runs all the time and immediately updates your chrome installation.
I think their use-case is non-standard. They need a way to fix vulnerability issues (since it's a browser) as soon as possible. Waiting for admins approving every single update company-wide, is simply not good enough.
As far as I can tell, the only reason why Chrome installs into the Application Data folder is so that non-admin users can install it.
The Chrome installer currently does not allow the user to pick where the application is to be installed. Don't do that – instead, give the user a choice between a per-user (somewhere like App Data) and computer-wide (Program Files) installation.
Windows 7 and Windows Installer 5.0 provide real per-user installation capabilities now.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd408068%28VS.85%29.aspx
You can sort of fudge it in Vista and XP by using ~/AppData/Local or the equivalent like Chrome does. Microsoft themselves use this for the ClickOnce installers.
So at least on Windows 7 and beyond the solution is simple.
Frankly, I have yet to see the first installer that really allows both per-user and per-machine installations. Many installers offer this option in their GUI, but the setting only affects where the shortcuts etc. go -- the binaries always fo to %ProgramFiles%.
In fact, it is pretty hard to create Windows Installer packages that allow both kinds of installs, to say the least. With the advent of UAC, I'd say its is impossible: Per user installations must not require elevation, per machine installations have to. But whether an MSI package requires elevation is controlled via a bit in the summary information stream -- there is no way to have user input have impact on that.
Whether per-user or per-machine is the better choice greatly deoends on the application. For small packages, however, I tend to prefer per-user installations. Besides being slightly more user-friendly by not requiring an UAC prompt or runas, they also signalize the user that the setup will not do much harm to the computer (assuming he is a non-admin).
The Chrome installer really ought to allow global installation (with elevation) in addition to per-user. I don't want to have to maintain an installation for every user; I want to be able to centrally manage upgrades and so on. Chrome doesn't allow that.
That said, the option to install per-user is quite nice, as it means no permissions issues.
Just so you people know, Google has created an MSI installer for global system installation and management. It's located here:
https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/business/browser/
I do not see anything in %PROGRAMFILES% on Win7. Looks like Chrome must be installed for each user on the machine.
Perhaps the true reason of doing this is faking number of Chrome installations by few times ! Thus making it first browser in the world !