Comments on: Hitting that App Installation Nerve
REBOL Technologies

Comments on: Hitting that App Installation Nerve

Carl Sassenrath, CTO
REBOL Technologies
23-Oct-2008 0:38 GMT

Article #0376
Main page || Index || Prior Article [0375] || Next Article [0377] || 23 Comments || Send feedback

Judging by the responses both here and on various comment sites, my last blog about application non-installation seems to have hit a nerve with a few people. Hey, that's a good thing, and I thank you for participating in the discussion.

As usual with a blog like this, the comments ranged from "you're absolutely right" to "you're an idiot." That's ok. Over the years, I've learned to respect all comments because there's usually at least a few grains of truth in every perspective, and I need not agree with a person in order to gain greater insights toward my own goals.

BTW, my main point is that we really should avoid going down a road of ever-increasing system size and complexity.

If you understand systems and "systemantics" then you know that complexity kills systems. This is why my TV satellite box crashed five times last week and even why my iPhone wants a 250 MB download every few weeks. (I do not consider that a non-trivial download for a mobile device running simple applications.)

Systemantics?

BTW, if you've never seen it, I recommend you to read John Gall's great book, Systemantics, The Underground Text of Systems Lore - How systems really work and how they fail. It's about more than just computer systems, it's about general systems, and we only ignore his insights at our own peril -- this month's financial market meltdown was a shining example. You can find a summary of Gall's system rules here. For example: "The larger the system, the greater the probability of unexpected failure."

Is OS X The Answer?

Many of the OS X guys in the crowd stood up and took a bow for believing that they have the right answer, and also took a few shots at me for not pointing it out. (Some even claimed that I had never tried it, oddly enough, not knowing that I once worked for Apple as an OS kernel designer, have owned and used dozens of Macs since 1985, and now own a few OS X boxes, one being what I would call my favorite "personal computer" -- a term of special designation.)

Even before OS X, the Mac had an advanced concept of resources used for both data and application. Although the forked file implementation of resources was problematic, the general concept was powerful, but also easy to use and understand. I have to admit I liked the concept, but not the fork.

On OS X, resource forks are gone and file bundles are used to hold all of the necessary components for apps and data. As long as that's all an app needs to run, it seems pretty good. But, I have to admit I've never tried installing new apps just by copying their bundles, nor have I tried removing apps by deleting their bundles. Nor have I tried to overload runtime DLLs with app-local copies, assuming that's possible, which I imagine it must be. I suppose I'm just overly paranoid.

Other Systems?

Are there other systems out there that also work toward solving this problem? Certainly, and if you read the comments to my post, you'll see quite a few mentioned.

BeOS/Haiku, Syllable, Starkits, JARS, Citrix, and others all aim to solve or minimize these installation problems, using a few different methods. Check the comments for details.

Personally, I tend to like approaches that minimize the effort on the end user's side, especially if it makes application management trivial. I can't stand wasting time installing apps. If you're asking me to download a 50 or 100 MB app system to do that, then it's not really as minimal as I'd prefer.

And, finally, that brings me to...

Does it Matter?

I guess we really need to ask that question, don't we? Is the traditional concept of an app just a dinosaur dying off? The concept of web-based apps is building faster than ever now that the web has gotten a bit smarter -- finally recognizing the great advantage gained by using the power of the client, what we've been pushing for quite a few years.

As a result, the requirement of installation has been replaced with just reloading the app whenever it's called for. Not very efficient is it? But then, for those who are not programmers nor system experts, who else really cares? Yeah, I know, that's heresy, but most users can just get right to using the app, not deal with app installations and related problems.

Yes, I suppose not very many people care, as long as they've got a good, fast, and cheap connection to the Internet. They will be online at all times and all places with pages and JS scripts that download quickly, network requests that have no latency and are transported by IP carriers that will give you all the bandwidth you want at no extra charge.

So, those are rock-solid guarantees for the future, right? Most computer technologists would say so. Just like bankers would about banks that are too large to collapse. Call me a techno-skeptic. Ultimately, everything changes. Like the CDS derivatives that brought down financial market giants, when you build a house of cards based on complex mechanisms that are difficult to understand, build, monitor, repair, improve, or remove, then ultimately, even a single glitch can bring it down.

Hmmm... it seems like I drifted from my opening topic. Or have I? Look, I just want a tool I can use efficiently, reliably, and at fairly low cost.

Now, I've got to get back to work. Let's see, where was I? Has my app install finished?

23 Comments

Comments:

Brian Hawley
23-Oct-2008 19:39:28
Mac OS X could be a good start in theory: It has some good rules to follow, and on a good day the applications will actually follow the rules (other days not). Deleting an application bundle doesn't delete any extra libraries or settings the application installed at runtime, though there might be a way to do this with script actions attached to folders. If anyone knows how to make a Mac application uninstall itself when you delete the app bundle, please post links in the comments. For that matter I would like to know how to uninstall something installed with Package Manager (I think that is the name of the standard system installer).

As for internet apps, I look forward to the future - the present is pretty bad. The closest I get now is my cell phone. Call me old-fashioned but I feel really uneasy about putting some data on servers where I don't have some legal or technological guarantee of privacy or at least ownership. This particularly includes privacy from the owners and operators of the server, and perhaps in some situations from third-parties, legal or otherwise. Everything you do is illegal somewhere and putting your data online means that you can't protect yourself just by not living where your life is illegal. Some day these issues will be resolved one way or the other.

EyeAm
23-Oct-2008 21:09:37
Carl, there's a definite future in Solid State Drives (SSD)! :-) No moving parts, and speeds far, far beyond traditional hard drives. "Instant-On" is within reach.

February 2009, TVs see the mandatory switchover to digital. HDTV, etc. That much more 'computer' comes home to roost on the TV. Pretty soon, surfing the web on the TV is *more* commonplace than currently. Clicking links in commercials, and so on. And those set-top boxes, digital video recorders...they'll all have Solid State Drives. Your TV, too, perhaps.

Seek times of .035ms and faster; using 50% less power than regular drives; up to 143 MB/second.

There is the 'Big Brother' concern of rendering the end user's computer a 'dumb terminal' and being shut away from your apps online--not to mention your stored work. And while that might happen here or there around the globe, I think we'll see more of an emphasis on subscription-based services and access to normally cost-prohibitive software (like the kind George Lucas might use). Access (time) to rendering farms, and the like. In that respect, I can see the whole web-based stuff as an advantage (don't have to buy the expensive software package, just buy a subscription to use one somewhere around the world--log in and use it like it's on your own computer). In that sense, it is 'no installation'. But I'd never want to do that with an operating system; however, I might not mind the idea of Microsoft having a pristine OS image online that it utilized for comparison when scanning|fixing normal system files, to keep things running efficiently and to guard against corruption. Usage to such a service would come with the license or the installed OS (might be a good idea for their OneCare Live package).

Henrik
24-Oct-2008 1:02:32
BrianH, there are uninstaller tools like AppZapper and AppCleaner which lists which plist files are linked to the program, and lets you delete all those files. How these lists are found and if that is all that is installed with the program that gets deleted, I don't know.

Like 99% of all systems, OSX gets more and more complex by each version, but I must commend them at least for unification of methods: Core Animation for all GUI animations, getting rid of Carbon, having only a single text rendering system. This is probably outweighed by added features, but it shows to me that Apple are battling complexity hard, because they know that OSX will develop in the future.

They know that if you slack now in developing software, you will pay dearly later by spending perhaps 50-75% of your time wrestling with the complexity in your own software. I've been doing that for too long not to know that, when I get whacked in the back of the head with an old system that I had to finish in a hurry and I have to dive back into it to fix a bug. I can't move on to the next thing. I'm not out of those woods yet and I'm paying dearly for it.

The guys who brought us the game Crysis are going to go back to a previous branch of their 3D engine for Far Cry 2, because the system requirements for Crysis are way too high. Yes, they are stepping backwards to go forward again. Not something you see very often stated in public. And it seems to be working for them.

Dmitry
24-Oct-2008 8:47:24
>Starkits, JARS, Citrix

First time heard about so strange OS. Google don't know nothing about it

Carl Sassenrath
24-Oct-2008 12:18:40
They are application bundlers/frameworks/encapsulators not full OSes. Google "starkits apps", "jars apps", etc. for starting links.
TheRafMan
24-Oct-2008 12:26:45
Carl,

Loved your post. Maybe you are not a neat freak like me but I agree with your logic... why do we complicate a simple ham sandwich? And if we did want a fancier ham sandwich we would still add the extras between the bread buns, not putting them on the plate, table or even the floor (sorry, best analogy I could come up on a short notice, must be close to lunch time ;).

The quote "The larger the system, the greater the probability of unexpected failure." should be corrected to "The more complex the system, the greater the probability of unexpected failure.", because if it is done right, it will be scalable.

My belief is that complexity has evolved with copyright in the commercial sector; and it is the same reason why we hear more and more about reverse engineering. The open source sector however should be modeled after this simpler elegant design.

Glad to know that there is still hope out there.

Cheers.

Carl Read
25-Oct-2008 1:29:02
Fascinating doco here here about one of our best (filmic) chroniclers of systems' breakdown.
popper
29-Oct-2008 15:31:38
http://osnews.com/story/20454/Clutter_is_Good_for_Intel_s_Moblin_Linux

but unless the GUi apps code appear for rebol, it might not be so good for you!

we keep getting back to the GUI not matter how you look at it, the old CLi with GUi plugin keeps coming back as the prefered way to interact.

it started with requestchoice/requestfile but the rebol 3rd party apps still lacks this most basic requirement for pervasive fully working examples with a few exceptions as outlined already.

Hostile Fork
29-Oct-2008 16:27:59
The average person does not have an intuition about whether software is "built right". In part this is because most people don't like thinking! But even if they did--the systems are just too opaque for someone who is not an expert to fathom.

Contrast this with the physical world of old-school technology...such as in buying a toaster. If a toaster came with a large adapter you are supposed to attach to your oven, people would stop right there and return it to the store! Plus, if it had a power cord also they'd write the manufacturer: "It's just a bread-shaped oven adapter, so why did I have to plug it in to an outlet too?"

Yet when people run TOASTER.EXE and it requires you to install OVEN.DLL, no one knows if this is a good or bad thing. Most of the time they're not even told of the dependency! The only path to an educated market is if developers find a way to help give users some "physical intution" about the guts of software.

Right now we have byte count, which might be seen a bit like mass. It could be compared to the size of a box a product comes in...if our toaster above had to come in a box that was 4 feet square due to the adapter then that causes intuitive concern. Similarly, downloading a simple calculator app that's a 1MB download worries people--but downloading a 64K calculator that depends on the massive .NET library masks the "true mass".

Only developers know how to use programs that reveal the "wires" and dependencies. That shouldn't be the case; a good OS should have a user-accessible dependency analyzer. Installing software should be a matter of a user (or user agent) plugging it in, with an understanding of the security and performance consequences of each plug. Applications could also be set so you could "read the meter" and understand who's hogging what (or accessing things that they shouldn't have access to, for privacy reasons/etc).

(I find it abhorrent that programs like ZoneAlarm are not part of the OS--if a program is talking to a remote server, we should know!)

I was happy to see that Google Chrome gave users a bit more of this "read the meter" power. They show the resource usage of each tab in the browser, and let you kill them independently. It's a big step forward.

Tim
30-Oct-2008 13:51:03
I just wanted to point out that Mac OSX hides a lot of it's complexity in it's unix based hybrid kernel. The unix system folders still exist, but you don't see them unless you pull up a terminal. It's a very messy kernel structure with a very nice userland on top of it. This is the same thing Gobolinux is doing. I can't decide if having files everywhere or having symlinks everywhere is cleaner. Either way the system is messy even if you don't see it in userland.
EyeAm
31-Oct-2008 1:00:26
HAPPY HALLOWEEN, Carl! :)
Greg Schofield
31-Oct-2008 18:36:51
REBOL files as wrappers.

I have no idea how far this can be taken, but it does not extend to only data files and scripts. The REBOL header is similar to email formats, the self-documentation like the best of old-fashioned DOS help. Simple and easy to understand, though I think REBOL could benefit from its own (REBOL based) IDE, just to standardise and automate these attributes.

The problem is of course that a wrapper system needs system wide support and to be truly useful a database access system where files of all sorts can be located wherever they are stored. Other things flow from this.

The files have to record information within them that can be used to reconstruct the database itself (if it is not two-way it is too fragile). So they have to allow restricted writes into the header to reflect how they are actually being used on a particular system.

The file database interface has to present files to traditional apps as if it a normal file locational selector. In other words a virtual directory hierarchy that no longer represents where files are stored but the tag information of what they are for.

A move to a task environment and away from a locational one.

This all seems a rather long stretch from Carl’s original concerns about have apps that can simply be copied-in rather than installed mysteriously (I strongly endorse Carl’s point). But it has a knock-on effect. If the apps are to be copied and the parts traceable and understandable then while duplication is not such a problem, updating and maintaining is.

Suppose a 100% Rebol applications, hundreds of them each having hundreds of parts. 70% of them use the same PDF printing modules. Whether this module is shared (one copy) or duplicated, a new optimised replacement can bestow benefits on all parts, but may corrupt a couple of apps. I would like a system where improvements are shared, but where exceptions can be dealt with, maybe even patched to work with “incompatible” replacements.

A highly centralised system has the same but opposite problems of a highly dispersed one. The first works well in bestowing blessings but usually at the cost of everything working as well as before. The latter keeps everything working but with cost that very few benefits are shared. Obviously a database works well with keeping track of things, but then everything looks up the data base for everything it does – not efficient and very fragile, and no real help when things get truly complex.

Rebol wrappers, well designed, or even a look-up module where changes and alternatives (old versions) for particular apps could be found could deliver, in conjunction with a user database for file access, rather than simple locational lookup, could deliver from all aspects, being both a copy and use system (without installation) and a enquiry and integrate front end. However it would need an IDE to keep projects compatible and produce a system of apps and data.

EyeAm
31-Oct-2008 21:53:17
Okay, it's seven minutes from the end of Halloween here, and I have time for one more Halloween prank (or...maybe it's NOT!) ;-)

So what you're saying is...these apps...must have some kind of GPS? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS

:D

Greg Schofield
1-Nov-2008 21:15:01
Maybe I can put it another way, very distant from Carl's concern. Imagine I am a secretary of the small environmental group. I use certain applications and distinct sets of data. To do this with present OS environments everything is spread all over the shop, The only real thing holding it together is how I save the data.

Taking it a step further, suppose I use Rebol to mould the software environment to make the job of secretary easy, calendar, correspondence, templates, logos, contacts etc., etc., all brought together for this single task all designed for this task (ie not generalised software any more, but using bits and pieces of various apps)- I have a created by doing this a special task "the green groups secretarial environment" it is a combination of application and data, some shared, others not (for instance my contacts list consists of all my contacts including the groups (of course I would have to have tagged them as belonging to one thing or another, or two or, more things).

I now want to give this task environment to the new secretary. In its working entirety.

Add in one other element 'Green_Group_Sec_ID: "w43iyvcbruwawl"' a unique world wide id associated with anything I have associated with this task (just to make chasing the connections easier.

The data has this in its rebol heading somewhere (again like an email), the database has recorded what apps I have associated with the task. And I now ask the system to extract the environment, moving some things, copying others.

I said elsewhere that dialects were my strong attraction to Rebol, I need to add, flexible email like headers are another.

Now it should be clear I am no programmer, I am a sloppy and naive reboler. But since the 80s I have been struggling, professionally, with damn file systems and the present locational system is both ancient and rotten.

On my small disk on my laptop I have 17,323 directories, on the other disk 12,401, I have another computer and several shared disks. There is no way I can by any form of organisation keep track of nearly 20,000 directories and the nearly half a million files contained (397,325 to be precise, an exaggeration, but not by much).

In terms of data as against app parts, OS and who knows what of these approximately a quarter million data files sit in my laptop. I have two superseded machines sitting about because I yet to even try to retrieve valuable data from them. We are easily into the millions in other words.

I don't think I am alone in saying that the vast majority of this data is lost amongst the junk and will never be retrieved or seen again. I have three partially written novels in there somewhere, research material on one of my numerous interests (I have a lot of long term projects), scripts, projects etc., etc., that I will never see again, except by luck, and then what do I do if I find something -- move it again?

Computers are blackholes, and the news is for the anally retentive, is that the vast majority of people are not so obsessed.

I know I sound a bit like a crank, but consider the Rebol header and the Rebol wrapper, and yes a Rebol application environment (if not a Rebol friendly OS). The problem is so obvious and so are some of the solutions, but data must know what it is and what it is for, and apps must know what they are and what is part of them, and they must be able to talk in a sensible and useful way.

As for locational directories as the means of storing and locating data and executables, it was always a compromise and now it is an absurdity.

EyeAm
2-Nov-2008 1:14:38
Hmm. I think I was on another page, in another book. :)

I think it's time programmers package-up their programs into a single file (perhaps inaccessible by the user). They buy a 'copy' of the pristine program, and there is no install, and it's like a screwdriver or any other tool, or a book - it can be loaned, sold, given away, placed on your computer, or moved to your laptop (not leaving it behind on your computer, but moved), and so on.

Take OpenOffice.org for instance. Supposing it to be a commercial program (it's not, but let's say it is)... On my computer right now, the folder for it in my Program Files folder says it has "3,611 Files, 442 Folders" (339MB on disk). That's the entire (installed) OpenOffice.org3 folder. Imagine all those files (along with any Commands and Libraries it needs to run) archived up into a single executable that can be moved around like a paperback book or tool. Not even going to the system's folders for commands anymore. And a bit more like Amiga OS did it once upon a time.

Copying would be impossible (those selling it would want to make sure of that). Sharing, giving away, loaning -- who cares what someone did with it once bought? About the only thing the license would prevent would be selling it, maybe; and maybe not even restricting that.

One could argue that all those files would *still* be on the computer - but, this way, maybe antivirus scanners would only see the one (unless you did a deeper scan), and maybe the program just wouldn't let anything like a virus into it. Everything self-contained that it needs to run (on certified hardware). 3,611 files reduced to 1, just for this program? All the others done the same way...I suppose defragging would be over pretty quick, too. :) And finding things among the files.

And speaking of that -- I think people losing their stuff on their computer is less the fault of the OS itself than it is their own inability to organize and remember where they put their stuff. I know where all my novels, novellas, epic poetry, screenplays, graphics, OS stuff and so forth exist on mine. They're always there where I left them.

--EyeAm http://www.myspace.com/foadiyops

Greg Schofield
2-Nov-2008 4:30:20
EyeAmportableapps.com has not done OpenOffice 3 yet, and it will not squeeze them into a single file, but it works like an old Amiga app, drag it on and click the exe -- no installation.

I use them in preference to installation software where ever I can, they work exactly as Carl proposes, designed for USB portability. Windows registry will identify the .tail with the app once you select it as the default for the file type (one registration rather than twenty). Updateing is easy, just delete the old and put in the new one. Personally I don't understand why most windows apps don't do the same thing by now.

And speaking of that -- I think people losing their stuff on their computer is less the fault of the OS itself than it is their own inability to organize and remember where they put their stuff.
Yep that is the problem in a nutshell, my take would be the opposite, why expect people to behave like machines?

Consider a hard working librarian, working in an established system of cataloguing and shelving. The amount of individual items on some our computers can often exceed a medium sized city library (perhaps even in size, but definitely in the number of items).

I think that is a big ask, and the collections aren't going to get any smaller over time. And while 75% of it is junk that should be deleted, that effectively buries the 25% that gets submerged.

You might be superbly well organised, but most of us simply are not. At work they have a strict regime of where and how files are stored, it is not even a large one, and most people most of the time put things exactly where they should go.

The question is why do people spend half an hour or more trying to find a file? They are not stupid and the file system is fairly logical (we are a research unit of government). On the same floor is a financial unit, all its files are kept in order by Powerdocs, they don't spend much time looking for things. However, their documents follow given forms, it is either one thing or another, it fits for what they do.

We are not so lucky, our documents all explain themselves on the cover (the information is there) nothing much can be deducted from file names because what is written varies so much. We have the information (its in most of the files once they are open), but they vary so much in content they can only be dumped in broad category directories (most are simple WP files). Of course no-one fills in the variable information which could help, but not cure the problem.

So there is simply no other way? That's it, we are condemned to remember everything no matter how much there is to remember and pre-organise it without even a library system to guide us?

EyeAm, I am not talking out my rear end on this. There are better ways, and Rebol is in a pretty good position to be at the centre of them. It already has many of the features. In fact a very small company I work with, is waiting for R3 to see just how far we can get with something simple that could solve a lot of these problems.

We did our proof of concept using emails as wrappers. For what we were after it worked fine, merging file storage, separating files into project stores, marking them up, tagging them freely using virtual directories. Organising them into projects (with overlaps -- files used in one or more projects).

We ran into a couple of anticipated problems with existing OS and app implementation, the major one being that email wrappers were so-to-speak dead, while Rebol wrappers could be much more "alive" and responsive.

Probably the wrong thread, very far removed from Carl's original topic, but of all the scripting languages we looked at, Rebol stood out - dialecting, headers, lightness etc.,

Solutions are not that hard to find, when the right question is posed.

Greg Schofield
2-Nov-2008 4:34:28
Sorry about the embolding - it was unintentional, accedently deleted the end tag at the post stage.
EyeAm
2-Nov-2008 5:11:01
Greg, we are machines. :) Look up Frank J. Tipler's ideas on "Human Finite State Machines".

You're right. There are better ways. Always. There are even better ways than Rebol. The one who is most open to the possibilities will lead the revolution.

Let me know when people (including Carl) figure out what *exactly* Rebol is - because I'm convinced no one knows, since over a year ago when they didn't know. A scripting language, a programming language, "like Flash", "like Java", like this or that. Figure it out, and only then can you market it (until you can market it, it won't sell).

Greg Schofield
2-Nov-2008 14:37
EyeAm I don't think this identity crisis is either accidental or easily solved.

Compare Rebol to LUA another 'relatively new' language and a very good one and a powerful one. Tiny footprint many of the virtues of Rebol, much easier to learn. No problem establishing what LUA is -- a powerful, eloquent scripting language.

No criticism of LUA and its team of developers and growing band of users -- but in a real sense that is all LUA will ever be. It would be my second preference only for that reason, and compared to Rebol it is a doodle to learn and use.

Now, from the outside I agree very much no-body really knows what Rebol is. Marketing is a disaster area because of this, but it is not accidental circumstance, nor do I think it is something that should be forcefully resolved (that would be a mistake).

Sitting somewhere between assembler and a scripting language, arcane in some respects, beautifully simple in others, no criticism of Carl or the abilities of the team in terms of foresight, but it looks like evolutionary product, it is a product of the environment, a response rather than predesigned solution to some subset of artificially "fixed" problems.

It fits everywhere and thus nowhere in particular. That is the primary character of Rebol as it stands. And the real solution is not marketing it at all. Forget marketing Rebol, people will find it via its products.

It is the making of products, first things that seem just versions of other things that work perfectly well (Cheyanne for instance), I would also suggest as a dialect for controlling openoffice just to tap into those users. And lastly, if it is all possible A Word Processor, spreadhseet, Database copy of already existing application suites. The sort of thing that will pass largely unnoticed in terms of market share. A big "so what!" of things done elsewhere, perhaps even more professionally than Rebolers initially create.

Then wait a little, I don't mean not doing anything, but wait for things to develop their own direction. Wait until people start doing unusual things, like integrating their world processor with their Photo-album, adapt their browser into a TV remote control. Things that sound really stupid and are completely unpredictable, but start bringing things together and taking things apart.

What Rebol is, is something that has to evolve, because I don't think we have any words and niche market to define it now, the concept has to evolve.

Innovative solutions sure -- but predictably these will just hang about until the time is right. The most important direction is the humblest one, just mimic things that people are already use to using, make them as clear and as modular as possible, well documented etc.,. set up projects for a Rebol drawing package (like inkscape)an image manipulator (like Gimp), in short anything people would like to do and is doable... and then wait for the niche, the label, the place for Rebol to make itself known, first to the Rebol community and then later the market.

I am hoping that R3 sets the genetic strain, without going overboard, covers the major areas in terms of graphics and other built-ins, in terms of making traditional apps feasible to create. And graphic potential is very very important. If R3 has the potential to deal with text as well as DTP (rendering accurately not having all the functions) can illustrate as precisely as Adobe or inkscape, can support a spreadsheet display etc., all as potentials; then that would set it up nicely.

And yes every single app should just be a copy, paste and run, and ideally appear as a single file (that would be nice, a single file full of modules; a single file that is in fact multiple modulated files).

EyeAm
2-Nov-2008 19:48:10
I would agree. "There are no accidents in nature."

Also, one of Rebol's strong suits does seems to be, as your post indicates, "invisible branding" (where other companies just utilize it for their products, and maybe put 'Powered by Rebol' somewhere - a notification that many people wouldn't even notice or care about (they'd be more concerned with the product, and whether that product is for them). In that sense, there would be no need to market it to the general populace, but to programmers and companies who need them, or it.

RobertS
23-Nov-2008 10:07:52
as seen at http://www.sqlite.org/different.html

Zero-Configuration

SQLite does not need to be "installed" before it is used. There is no "setup" procedure. There is no server process that needs to be started, stopped, or configured. There is no need for an administrator to create a new database instance or assign access permissions to users. SQLite uses no configuration files. Nothing needs to be done to tell the system that SQLite is running. No actions are required to recover after a system crash or power failure. There is nothing to troubleshoot. SQLite just works.

Other more familiar database engines run great once you get them going. But doing the initial installation and configuration can be intimidatingly complex

end-quote

example: (startup with a database, get help with a dot-command and then exit

sqlite3.exe my-new-database

>sqlite .help

>sqlite .quit

Andy K
28-Nov-2008 11:54:42
See Sandboxie.com

Applications can be installed in the sandbox. The operating system then, is not changed, not even the registry.

Listen to the author of Sandboxie Ronen Tzur on Steve Gibson's Security Now show http://media.grc.com/sn/sn-172-lq.mp3

Evgueni
15-Dec-2008 5:09:25

quote
my iPhone wants a 250 MB download every few weeks. (I do not consider that a non-trivial download for a mobile device running simple applications.)
end-quote
Surely the assumed meaning is reverse? :
(I do consider that a non-trivial download ...)

Post a Comment:

You can post a comment here. Keep it on-topic.

Name:

Blog id:

CS-0376


Comment:


 Note: HTML tags allowed for: b i u li ol ul font p br pre tt blockquote
 
 

This is a technical blog related to the above topic. We reserve the right to remove comments that are off-topic, irrelevant links, advertisements, spams, personal attacks, politics, religion, etc.

Updated 22-Nov-2017   -   Copyright Carl Sassenrath   -   WWW.REBOL.COM   -   Edit   -   Blogger Source Code