I have secured the budget to upgrade the individual workstations and latops. While newer, bigger screens were welcomed with enthusiasm, the thought of re-installation tools and settings caused most of them to blanch and I got one "Do I really have to?".
How much downtime do you usually have when you move to a new machine?
Do you employ tools or script to set up your dev environment, tools, db's, debuggers etc.specifically for a windows environment?
Is there a standard image that you keep and then let devs move in and tweak the machine as necessary?
My company essentially virtualized in order to stop wasting so much time with upgrades/system failures.
Whenever a desktop/laptop failed, we'd have to spend a better part of a day fixing it and reloading the software.
So, we went out, bought iMacs for everyone and loaded Parallels (a VMware like product for OSX) on them. Then we made a standard dev image for everyone, and just copied it to everyone's machines.
Essentially, if anyone's configuration got messed, we just loaded in a fresh image and kept on truckin'. Saved a lot of time.
Some additional benefits:
When new software is out, we just make a new image and distribute it. Not OS re-installs or anything like that.
If hardware changes, doesn't matter, just move the image.
You can run multiple os's concurrently for testing
You can take "snapshots" in your current image and revert if you really messed something up.
Multiple builds on the same machine...since you can run multiple os's.
Surprisingly the overhead of a virtualized system is quite low.
We only run the software on a real machine for performance tuning/testing purposes.
One day is generally enough for upgrades. I do keep digital copies of VS.NET so much easier to install.
When it comes to other tools generally it's just better to go to websites and install the latest version.
Also it's a good idea to install tools whenever you need instead of trying to install everything at the same time.
The last time I upgraded to a new machine, I think it took about 4 hours to get most of the necessary tools reinstalled. Over time, I've had to re-install quite a few more tools, but I think it's worth it.
If you can get a ghost/image of the default tool set (Visual Studio 2003-2008, Eclipse, NetBeans, or whatever you're using), and all the major service packs, that would help a lot with the initial setup.
I think the downtime is definitely worth it, a new, faster machine will make anyone more productive.
You can have 0 downtime by having both machines available. You will not have as much productivity.
This depends on the number of tools needed by the development team. Tools such as Rational Software Architect can take hours to install on their own. The exercise of having the developers list the applications they need before moving in can help you optimize strategies to deploy effectively. Both machines should be available for a fixed period of time and having them available can allow develoers to both work and kick of long running installs at the same time.
Creating a standard image based on the list provided to you can improve efficiency. Having the relvant software on a share could also let them cherry pick as needed and give the development team the feeling that they can go back as necessary.
Tools to assist in catpuring user settings exist. I have only ever had experience with Doctor Mover. If you have 100 or more developers to move it may be worth the cost. I can't complain too much but it wasn't perfect.
I have never had a problem with just getting a list of all the software a particular users uses. In fact I have never found the base install to be much of an issue. The parts I tend to spend the most time on are re-configuring all of the users custom settings (very common with developers I find). This is where it is very valuable to have the old machine around for awhile so that the user can at a minimum remote-desktop to it and see how they have things set up.
Depending on how your team works, I would highly recommend having every user receiving a new computer get the latest source tree from your source control repository rather than by copying entire directories. And, I would also recommend doing that before actually sending the old workstation elsewhere or even disconnecting it.
One of the great things about tools like CVS and SVN is that it is quite easy for developers to end up with an unofficial "personal branch" from things that are not properly checked in, merged, etc.
While it will cost time to deal with the shift if things are not properly synchronized, it is an invaluable opportunities to catch those things before they come to haunt you later.
Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I have used InstallAware and InstallShield before, and they are pretty difficult to work with and when something goes wrong it is very difficult to find and resolved the issue.
My question is why can't we use a Windows application written using C# to do this.
I understand that .Net framework may not be installed on the destination computer, so I wonder why no one has ever used this architecture:
I will create a simple installer using IntallSiheld(or any other similar tool) to just install .Net Framework and after that extracts and runs my own Windows application which I have written using C# in elevated mode. My application will run a Wizard with Back and Next button and I will take care of everything in it (copying files, creating and starting Windows Services, adding registry values, creating firewall extensions etc.)
Has anyone ever done this, and is there anything that prevents people from doing this?
In essence: don't try to re-invent the wheel. Use an existing deployment tool and stay with your day job :-). There are many such tools available. See links below.
And below, prolonged, repetitive musing:
Redux: IMHO and with all due respect, if I may say so, making your own installer software is reinventing the wheel for absolutely no gain whatsoever I am afraid. I believe you will "re-discover" the complexities found by others who have walked the path that is involved in deployment as you create your own installer software and find that software can be quick to make, but very hard to perfect. In the process you will expend lots of effort trying to wrap things up - and "the last meter is very long" as you curse yourself dealing with trifles that take up your time at the expense of what would otherwise pay the bills. Sorting out the bugs in any toolkit for whatever technical feature, can take years or even decades. And no, I am not making it up. It is what all deployment software vendors deal with.
Many Existing Tools: there are many existing tools that implement such deployment functionality already - which are not based on Windows Installer (Inno Setup, NSIS, DeployMaster and heaps of other less known efforts):
There is a list of non-MSI installer software here.
There is another list of MSI-capable software here.
My 2 cents - if you do not like MSI, choose one of the free, non-MSI deployment tools. How to create windows installer.
Corporate Deployment: The really important point (for me) is that corporate deployment relies on standardized packaging formats - such as MSI - to allow reliable, remote management of your software's deployment. Making your own installer will not impress any system administrators or corporate deployment specialists (at least until you sort out years of bugs and deficiencies). They want standardized format that they know how to handle (that does not imply that they are that impressed with existing deployment technology). Doing your deployment with standardized deployment formats can get you corporate approval for your software. If you make a weird deployment format that does unusual things on install that can't be easily captured and deployed on a large scale your software is head-first out of any large corporation. No mercy - for real. These are busy environments and you will face little understanding for your unusual solution.
"File-Pushers": Those of us who push files around for a living know that the field of deployment is riddled with silly problems that quickly kill your productiveness in other endeavors - the ones that make you stand out in your field - your day job. Deployment is a high profile, low status endeavor - and we are not complaining. It is just what it is: a necessity that is harder to deal with than you might think. Just spend your time more wisely is what I would conclude.
Complexity: Maybe skim the section "The Complexity of Deployment" here: Windows Installer and the creation of WiX. It is astonishing to deal with all the silly bugs that happen in deployment. It is not just a file copy, though it might be easy to think it is. And if it happens to be just a file copy, then there are existing tools that do the job. Free ones too. See links above. And if you think deployment is only file-copy in general, then please skim this list of tasks a deployment task should be capable of supporting: What is the benefit and real purpose of program installation?
Will your home-grown package handle the following? (just some random thoughts)
A malware-infected terminal server PC in Korea with Unicode characters in the path?
Symbolic links and NTFS junction points paths?
A laptop which shuts itself off in the middle of your file copy because it is out of battery?
Out of disk space situations? What about disk errors? And copy timeouts?
What about reboot requirements? For in-use files or some other reason. How are they to be handled? What if the system is in a reboot pending state and you need to detect it before kicking off your install?
How will you reliably install, configure and start and stop services?
How will you support uninstall and cleanup for your application?
Security software which flags your unknown, unrecognized, non-standard package a security threat and quarantines it? How would you begin to deal with this? Who do you contact to get into the good graces of a "recognized binary" for elevation?
Non-standard NTFS permissioning (ACLs) and NT Privileges? How do you detect it and degrade gracefully when you get permission denied? (for whatever reason).
Deployment of necessary runtimes for your application to work? (has been done by many others before). Download of the lastest runtimes if your embedded ones are out of date? Etc...
Provide a standardized way to extract files from your installation binary?
Provide help and support for your setup binaries for users who try to use them?
Etc... This was just a random list of whatever came to mind quickly. There are obviously many issues.
This was a bit over the top for what you asked, but don't be fooled to think deployment is something you can sort out a solution for in a few hours. And definitely don't take the job promising to do so - if that is what you are being asked. Just my two cents.
The above issues, and many others, are what people discover they have to handle when creating deployment software - for all but the most trivial deployments. Don't waste your time - use some established tool.
Transaction: If you are working in a corporation and just need your files to your testers, you can deploy using batch files for that matter - if you would like to. But you have to support it, and I guarantee you it will take a lot of your time. What do you do when the batch file failed half-way through due to a network error, and your testers are testing files that are inconsistent? Future deployment technologies may be better for such light-weight tasks. Perhaps the biggest feature of a deployment tool is to report whether the deployment completed successfully or not, and to log the errors and to roll the machine back to a stable state if something failed. Windows Installer does a lot of this work for you.
Distribution: A lot of people feel they can "just replicate my build folder to the user's computers". The complexities involved here are many. There is network involved, and network can never be assumed to be reliable, you need lots of error handling here. Then there is the issue of transactions: when do you know when the computer is in a stable state and should stop replicating. How often do you replicate, only on demand? How do you deal with the few computers that failed to replicate. How do you tell the users? These are distribution issues. Corporations have huge tools such as SCCM to deal with all these error conditions. Trying to re-implement all these checks, logging and features will take a long time. In the end you will have re-created an existing distribution system. Full circle. And how do you do inventory of your computers when there is no product registered as installed since only a batch file or script ran? And if you start replicating a lot of packages, how many times do you scan each file to determine if they are up to date? How much network traffic do you want to create? Where does it end? The answer: I guess transactions must be implemented with full logging and error tracking and rollback. Then you are full circle to a distribution system like I mentioned above and a supported package format as well.
This "just replicate my build folder to my users" ideas somehow remind me of this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacies_of_distributed_computing. Not a 100% match, but the issues are reminiscent. When networking is involved, things start to become very unpredictable and you need logging, error control, transactions, rollback, network communication, etc... We have re-discovered large scale deployment - the beast that it is.
Network: and let's say you want to replicate your build folder to 10000 desktop machines in your enterprise. How do you kick off the replication? Do you start all replications at once and take down the trading floor of the bank as file replication takes over the whole network like a DDOS attack? Sorry - it is getting out of hand - please pardon the lunacy - but it really is upsetting that this replication approach is seen as viable for large scale deployment with current technology approaches. Built-in Windows features could help, but still need to be tested properly. You need scheduling, queuing, caching, regional distribution shares, logging, reporting / inventory, and God knows what else that a packaging / deployment system gives you already. And re-implementing it will be a pain train of brand new bugs to deal with.
Maybe we one day will see automatic output folder replication based on automatic package generation which really works via an intelligent and transacted distribution system. Many corporate teams are trying, and by using existing tools they get closer with standard package formats used. I guess current cloud deployment systems are moving in this direction with online repositories and easy, interactive installation, but we still need to package our software intelligently. It will be interesting to see what the future holds and what new problems result for packaging and distribution in the age of the cloud.
As we pull files directly from online repositories on-demand we will see a bunch of new problems? Malware, spoofing and injection? (already problematic, but could get worse). Remote files deleted without warning (to get rid of vulnerable releases that should no longer be used - leaving users stranded)? Certificate and signature problems? Firewalls & proxy issues? Auto-magic updates with unfortunate bugs hitting everyone immediately and unexpectedly? And the fallacies of the network and other factors as linked to above. Beats me. We will see.
OK, it became a rant as usual - and that last paragraph is heading over board with speculation (and some of the issues already apply to current deployment). Sorry about that. But do try to get management approval to use an existing packaging & deployment solution is my only advice.
Links:
Stefan Kruger's Installsite.org twitter feed: https://twitter.com/installsite
Choosing a deployment tool:
How to create windows installer
What installation product to use? InstallShield, WiX, Wise, Advanced Installer, etc
Windows Installer and the creation of WiX
WiX quick start tips
More on dark.exe (a bit down the page)
I am trying to set up an automatic uninstaller for a program. basically I want the program to uninstall after a certain time has passed (lets say 1 year).
Is there any way I could do this? It would basically be a trial version of the software.
Sorry for not being specific about this but i just want some options on how I could do this easily.
Thank You in advance for your responses and sorry for my bad English.
I have never seen such a design. I suppose you could use a scheduled Windows task, but why do this? You can just have the application expire after a year and offer a button on launch to kick off the uninstaller? It can launch the uninstall asynchronously and shut down the application right away.
I have also never seen such a design, likely because it fails to consider several issues, namely how do you keep users from:
reinstalling it?
installing it on another machine, or on a VM with snapshots?
restoring a hard drive backup over it?
killing the uninstallation?
Software licensing is hard to get right. I would recommend using a third-party licensing package that offers trial licensing. I would avoid trying to roll your own solution, as it will likely take you a lot of time to develop and be ineffective nonetheless. Picking the right product for this depends on first answering some questions, though:
How a. skilled and how b. determined will the adversaries be who are costing you the most amount of financial loss? That is determined by:
How much money will you lose if you don't protect it? This should determine the next question, which is:
What is your budget for software protection? It should be less than the amount you would lose without it. This should include the next question, which is:
How many hours do you want to invest to get this working?
It sounds to me like you want an automated wrapper that will work with precompiled applications / installers, as opposed to using an SDK you must integrate into your code.
Our dev team uses VS.NET for app development and TortoiseSVN/VisualSVN for version control. It seems that almost every day issues arise with the working copy or the repository getting screwed up, and folks just throw up their hands and call me when it happens. There are definitely human factors at work (SVN works as it should) but I'm tired of playing SVN helpdesk to the dev team. Can anyone recommend a better/more intuitive setup for version control?
Agent SVN works well for me. It integrates nicely with Visual Studio.
SVN is about as simple as version control systems get. Problems should only arise when dealing with merging operations...those can be tricky.
If you don't address the "human factors" it won't matter which version control system you use, you will always be the helpdesk. To address these kinds of problems, you typically need to:
Set up a wiki with common "recipes" for version control tasks.
Include a workflow diagram for how changes are made to your code (for those who don't like to read).
Host a training session that is specifically
designed for your users (use the wiki
material).
When helping someone with a problem, be sure to make them perform the actual fix. Don't just do it for them, talk them through it instead.
Make a point of directing users to product documentation when helping them.
Introducing a new version control system into any organization should include the items I listed. I realize it is extra work for those who get it done, but it does save you from long "support" hours down the road.
Can anyone recommend a better/more intuitive setup for version control?
Better? Yes. More intuitive? That's debatable. Look into distributed version control software, namely Mercurial or Git. Both have freely available plugins to integrate with Visual Studio. And if you can manage spending a little money, I've heard very good things about Fog Creek's Kiln.
As for your issues with SVN, I have a couple tips. The first is to make sure you keep everyone synced on the same version of the product. It tends to update frequently, and so this can be tricky, as you also don't want to fall too far behind the current version. The second is that we used to have big problems with Tortoise trying to cache icon overlays on mapped network drives. There is an option you can turn off somewhere that suddenly made things way more stable. But that was at my last job, and I don't remember the exact setting any more.
I think you already gave the answer in your question - sort out the "human factors" by providing appropriate training. Version control for software development doesn't get much simpler than SVN, so from the way your question is phrased, my guess would be that said human factors are just going to find other ways of making your life interesting.
if you have issues with your repository getting screwed (like committing on tags, wrong commit messages...), one of the easiest way is to play it the hard way : put hooks on the server to enforce policies. You can have a look in official documentation.
Basically, this is an easy way to enforce naming / formatting and avoid a lot of human issues (committing on tags, messing with externals...)
Last year, in 2009 GSoC, I participated with an organization called Winlibre. The basic idea is having a project similar to Aptitude (or Apt-get) and a GUI like Synaptic but for Windows and just to hold (initially), only open source software. The project was just ok, we finished what we considered was a good starting point but unfortunately, due to different occupations of the developers, the project has been idle almost since GSoC finished. Now, I have some energy, time and interest to try to continue this development. The project was divided in 3 parts: A repository server (which i worked on, and which was going to store and serve packages and files), a package creator for developers, and the main app, which is apt-get and its GUI.
I have been thinking about the project, and the first question that came to my mind is.. actually is this project useful for developers and Windows users? Keep in mind that the idea is to solve dependencies problems, and install packages "cleanly". I'm not a Windows developer and just a casual user, so i really don't have a lot of experience on how things are handled there, but as far as I have seen, all installers handle those dependencies. Will windows developers be willing to switch from installers to a packages way of handling installations of Open source Software? Or it's just ok to create packages for already existing installers?
The packages concept is basically the same as .deb or .rpm files.
I still have some other questions, but basically i would like to make sure that it's useful in someway to users and Windows developers, and if developers would find this project interesting. If you have any questions, feedback, suggestions or criticisms, please don't hesitate posting them.
Thanks!!
be sure to research previous efforts on this. Google turns up several similar/relevant efforts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_management_system#Microsoft_Windows
http://windows-get.sourceforge.net
http://pina.plasmite.com
IIRC there was an rpm for windows at some point
Also I think there was some guy (who used to work at MS) in the news recently that basically is starting up a very similar project. I can't find a link to this now.
But anyway, yeah, it would be awesome if there was such a standard tool and repository.
I can only speak for myself, but obviously I could definitely make use of such a tool as I found your post through googling! ;)
My two use cases for this tool would the following ones:
1. I generally avoid to re-install my system as long as possible (in fact I manage to do so only for switching to a reasonable (not each an every) new version of Windows every few years or to setup new computers). But still I'd like my software to be up-to-date. Neither do I want to have to go to all the web pages and check manually if there are compatibility issues with the new version of Doxygen, Graphviz and the latest version of MikTeX for example, nor do I want to have to navigate to the download pages and run the setups all by myself. I just want to schedule ONE SINGLE (!) tool, which checks whether there are new updates or not and updates those applications which are not in conflict with any other application version.
If it unavoidably happens to me that I have to re-install my system, I don't want to get the new setups neither (and check compatibility). I even don't want to wait for one setup to finish in order to start the next one, I just want to check the tools I need, or even better, I want to simply load my "WinApt XML" batch installation file, which gets the installers and handles the setups sequentially all by itself.
I don't know enough about the architecture of .deb or .rpm but IMHO the most reasonable would be to maintain a DB with only the names, versions, dependencies and the location of the different versions' download locations. I mean, most of the tools available for Windows provide .msi packages anyways, which (I guess) is the application itself and some custom installation properties (really not sure how scripting is handled, but I know that creating a MSI in Visual Studio has very limited abilities to create custom installation steps and I can only imagine this is due to limitations of MSI protocol).
I guess a GUI will be mandatory for Windows users ;) but I personally would prefer the additional ability to handle the setups with the console.
Well, I like the idea and would love to hear from that (or such a) tool in the future.
Cheers
Check out NSIS. It's an open source MSI creator. You might be able to use it as part of your package creation software.
http://nsis.sourceforge.net/Main_Page
For the ALT-.Net tool/lib stack there have been some affords in this direction: Horn Get
However, the usability in a real world project has been subject in this SO question.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
As developers, we believe that not having local administrative access is going to severely handicap our productivity. We will be restricted from running IIS (we’re a web development shop), installing applications, running Microsoft power tools, etc. If you’re going through the FDCC process now, it would be great to hear how you are coping with these changes.
Having actively worked as a contract developer at a base that uses the AF Standard Desktop, I can tell you a few things.
1: and most important. Don't fight it and don't do what the first person suggested "and let them choke on it". That is absolutely the wrong attitude. The military/government is fighting lack of funding, overstretched resources and a blossoming technology footprint that they don't understand. The steps they are taking may not be perfect, but they are under attack and we need to be helping, not hindering.
OK, that off my chest.
2: You need to look at creating (and I know this is hard with funding the way it is) a local development lab. Every base that I have worked at has an isolated network segement that you can get on that has external access, that is isolated from the main gov network. You basically have your work PC for e-mail, reports etc.. that is on the protected network. But, you develop in your small lab. I've had a lab be 2 PCs tucked under my desk that were going to be returned during a tech refresh. In other words, be creative with making yourself a development machine +servers that are NOT restricted. Those machines are just not allowed to be connected to the main lan segment.
3: Get the distributions of the desktop configurations. Part of your testing needs to be deploying/running on these configurations. Again, these configurations are not meant for development boxes. They are meant to be the machines the people use for day to day gov work.
4: If you are working on web solutions, be very aware of the restrictions on adding trusted sites, ActiveX components, certs, certain types of script execution that the configuration won't allow. Especially if you are trying to embed widgets/portlets/utils that require communications outside the deployed application domain.
5: Above all remember that very few of the people you work for understand the technology they are asking you to implement. They know they want function X but they want you to follow draconian security rule Y while achieving it. What that usually means is that the "grab some open source lib or plugin and go" is not an option. But, that is exactly what your managers think you are going to do because of the buzz around rapid development.
In summary, it's a mess out there. Try to help solve the problem.
While I've never been through the FDCC process, I once worked for a U.S. defense contractor who's policy was that no one had local administrative access to their machines. In addition, flash drives and CD-ROMs were disabled (if you wanted to listen to music on CDs, you had to have a personal CD player with headphones).
If you needed software installed you had to put in a work order. Someone would show up at your desk with the install media, login to a local admin account, and let you install the software (the reasoning being that you knew what to install better than they did). Surprisingly, the turnaround was pretty quick, usually around 1/2 an hour.
While an inconvenience, this policy didn't really cripple us. We were doing a combination of Java, C++ (MS Visual C++ and GNU/C++), VB 6.0 and some web development. For what little web development we did, we had a remote dev box we would RDP into for testing. Again, a bit of an inconvenience, but it didn't stop us from getting our jobs done.
Without ever having had the problem, today I'd probably try a virtualising solution to run these tools.
Or, as a friend of mine once opined: "Follow the process until They choke on it." In this case this'd probably mean calling the helpdesk each time you needed to have a modification to your local IIS config or you'd needed one of the powertools started.
From what I can tell FDCC is only intended to be a recommended security baseline. I'd give some push back on the privileges that you require and see what they can come up with to accommodate your request. Instead of saying I need to be a local administrator, I'd list the things that you need to be able to do and let them come up with a solution that works (which will likely to be to let you administer your machine or a VM). You need to be able to run the debugger in Visual Studio, run a local web server (Cassini), install patches/updates to your dev tools on your schedule, ...
I recently moved to a "semi-managed" environment with SCCM that gets patches installed on a regular basis from a local update repository. I was doing this myself, but this is marginally more efficient for the enterprise and it makes the security office happy. I did get them to put me, and the other developers, in a special collection so that we could block breaking changes if needed (how could IE7 be a security update?). Not much broke except that now I need to update Windows Defender manually since I updated it more frequently than they do in the managed collection! It wasn't as extreme as your case, obviously, but I think that is, in part, due to the fact that I was able to present the case for things that I needed to do for my job that required more local control.
From the NIST FAQ on Securing WinXP.
Should I make changes to the baseline settings? Given the wide
variation in operational and technical
considerations for operating any major
enterprise, it is appropriate that
some local changes will need to be
made to the baseline and the
associated settings (with hundreds of
settings, a myriad of applications,
and the variety of business functions
supported by Windows XP Systems, this
should be expected). Of course, use
caution and good judgment in making
changes to the security settings.
Always test the settings on a
carefully selected test machine first
and document the implemented settings.
This is quite common within financial institutions. I personally treat this as a game to see how much software I can run on my PC without any admin rights or sending requests to the support group.
So far I have done pretty well I have only sent one software install request which was for "Rational Software Architect" ('cos I need the plugins from the "official" release). Apart from that I have perl, php, python, apache all up and running. In addition I have jetty server, maven, winscp, putty, vim and a several other tools running quite happlily on my desktop.
So it shouldnt really bother you that much, and, even though I am one of the worst offenders when it comes to installing unofficial software I would recommend "no admin rights" to any shop remotly interested in securing their applications and networks.
One common practice is to give developers an "official" locked down PC on which they can run the official applications and do their eMail admin etc. and a bare bones development workstation to which they have admin rights.
Not having local administrative access to your workstation is a pain in the rear for sure. I had to deal with that while I was working for my university as a web developer in one of the academic departments. Every time I needed something installed such as Visual Studio or Dreamweaver I had to make a request to Computing Services.