ibm-netrexx

Installer

Classic

List

Threaded

5 messages Options

billfen

Installer

The only things necessary for almost all users are 3 web page buttons
labelled: "Windows", "Mac" and "Linux/Unix", and the instructions "Click to
install NetRexx".

The machinery to get the job done is of little interest, except to the
author(s) of the installation tool(s). It is the results that count. Does
it really matter how elegant or ugly it is under the covers?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Aviatrexx

Re: Installer

Sorry Bill, but I have to disagree with just about everything you
said. :-/

On 9/24/11 00:25 [hidden email] said:
> The only things necessary for almost all users are 3 web page buttons
> labelled: "Windows", "Mac" and "Linux/Unix", and the instructions "Click to
> install NetRexx".

... and "USS" and "Android" and ... unless you don't really care about
one of the largest environments and one of the fastest-growing ones.

> The machinery to get the job done is of little interest, except to the
> author(s) of the installation tool(s)

... and the poor schlubs that have to support the tools.

> It is the results that count.

A philosophy that always comes back to bite you in the butt.

> Does it really matter how elegant or ugly it is under the covers?

Again, to the maintainers, it's crucial. Ugly code is much harder to
fix/enhance. And mistakes here affect a disproportionately large
number of users.

Of greater importance however is that all the disparate installers are
functionally equivalent. Different platforms will demand different
processes or we would be able to design a Single Unified NetRexx
Installer. Absent a SUNI, we have to be confident that the resulting
NetRexx installations are functionally equivalent. Think of it as a
Single Unified NetRexx Installer Design.

-Chip-

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

billfen

Re: Installer

In reply to this post by billfen

On 10/11/2011 3:49 PM, Chip Davis wrote:
> Sorry Bill, but I have to disagree with just about everything you said.
:-/
>
> On 9/24/11 00:25 [hidden email] said:
>> The only things necessary for almost all users are 3 web page buttons
>> labelled: "Windows", "Mac" and "Linux/Unix", and the instructions "Click
to
>> install NetRexx".
>
> ... and "USS" and "Android" and ... unless you don't really care about
one of the largest environments and one of the fastest-growing ones.

>> The machinery to get the job done is of little interest, except to the
>> author(s) of the installation tool(s)
>
> ... and the poor schlubs that have to support the tools.
>> It is the results that count.
>
> A philosophy that always comes back to bite you in the butt.
>> Does it really matter how elegant or ugly it is under the covers?
>
> Again, to the maintainers, it's crucial. Ugly code is much harder to

fix/enhance. And mistakes here affect a disproportionately large number of
users.
>
> Of greater importance however is that all the disparate installers are
functionally equivalent. Different platforms will demand different
processes or we would be able to design a Single Unified NetRexx Installer.
Absent a SUNI, we have to be confident that the resulting NetRexx
installations are functionally equivalent. Think of it as a Single Unified
NetRexx Installer Design.
>
> -Chip-

Chip,

I seldom have problems with people who disagree with my opinions - they
might be right :)

I don't use it, but my understanding is that Android uses the Linux kernel.
Obviously an installer for Linux/Unix should handle that, as well as for
USS (which is a Unix 95 standard Unix implementation).

I still suggest that the large preponderance of users who use an installer
do not have the slightest interest in the code contained in the installer,
and that is appropriate. Obviously you have installed many packages - can
you honestly say that out of the last 10, you seriously took interest and
action regarding the installer code in any of them? Chances are that you
(like essentially all users) clicked on "install", followed the directions,
and then immediately began testing and using the installed package.

As for the support of the installer code, note that I didn't say or imply
that the implementation quality should be substandard. What I said was
that the implementation was of almost no concern to the user. The primary
criteria is that the installation works. As for a judgement that code is
"ugly" or "elegant", I simply pointed out that from a users perspective, it
doesn't matter, only that the installation is successful.

I would be interested in hearing your evidence for "A philosophy that
always comes back to bite you in the butt". I think that is an arbitrary
aphorism which can clearly be challenged. There is nothing wrong with goal
directed efforts which place substantial emphasis on successful results.
We put men on the moon and brought them back that way.

It would be useful if you explained what you mean when you say (that
ideally) "all the disparate installers are functionally equivalent".

I think it is easy to say "Wouldn't a Single Unified NetRexx Installer be
nice" without actually considering what is involved in detail. This is a
case of "The perfect is the enemy of the good" - wasting time dreaming of a
pie-in-the-sky "wonderful solution" is counter productive.

As you have said, the platforms as significantly different. I say just get
on with it - Divide and Conquer the installation problem. Decide which
platform(s) will have the most installations, and develop installers for
those first. If commonality appears, take advantage of it, but don't start
with that as an amorphous design goal. I think that is just an excuse to
procrastinate.

It seems to me that with the current situation, in which there is no
installer, there may be a substantial number of potential users who will
unfortunately take the attitude "Why bother with this? They can't be
serious - they don't even have an installer!".

In developing the Eclipse NetRexx plugin, I was careful to make sure that
the installation uses the standard approach for the Eclipse environment,
and that it is just as easy as any other Eclipse plugin installation. I
suggest that if the desired end result is the installation of NetRexx so
that it is usable from a command line (terminal) interface (or other
environment) that the same criteria and approach be used.

Bill

--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

measel

RE: Installer

Bill are you *really* going to try to do NetRexx development *on* an android or any other phone ? I mean seriously, come on.

Some possibilities:

1) Basic version. No installer. Instructions for where the files go.

2) SDKs. Ready to install into the various IDEs.

3) Runtime. A single small jar for your phone, tablet, laptop or mainframe.

4) Premium. Any of the above packaged with InstallAnywhere --- your grandmother can click thru it. $9.95

5) Linux ISO for virtualbox. Ubuntu, jvm, Netrexx SDK, Jedit and various IDE's (yeah, just go crazy) and it all fits on a usb stick.

Personally I like 1 and 5.

Proceeds from #4 go to support Aruba.

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:02 PM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Installer

On 10/11/2011 3:49 PM, Chip Davis wrote:
> Sorry Bill, but I have to disagree with just about everything you said.
:-/
>
> On 9/24/11 00:25 [hidden email] said:
>> The only things necessary for almost all users are 3 web page buttons
>> labelled: "Windows", "Mac" and "Linux/Unix", and the instructions "Click
to
>> install NetRexx".
>
> ... and "USS" and "Android" and ... unless you don't really care about
one of the largest environments and one of the fastest-growing ones.

fix/enhance. And mistakes here affect a disproportionately large number of
users.
>
> Of greater importance however is that all the disparate installers are
functionally equivalent. Different platforms will demand different
processes or we would be able to design a Single Unified NetRexx Installer.
Absent a SUNI, we have to be confident that the resulting NetRexx
installations are functionally equivalent. Think of it as a Single Unified
NetRexx Installer Design.
>
> -Chip-

Chip,

I seldom have problems with people who disagree with my opinions - they
might be right :)

I don't use it, but my understanding is that Android uses the Linux kernel.
Obviously an installer for Linux/Unix should handle that, as well as for
USS (which is a Unix 95 standard Unix implementation).

I still suggest that the large preponderance of users who use an installer
do not have the slightest interest in the code contained in the installer,
and that is appropriate. Obviously you have installed many packages - can
you honestly say that out of the last 10, you seriously took interest and
action regarding the installer code in any of them? Chances are that you
(like essentially all users) clicked on "install", followed the directions,
and then immediately began testing and using the installed package.

As for the support of the installer code, note that I didn't say or imply
that the implementation quality should be substandard. What I said was
that the implementation was of almost no concern to the user. The primary
criteria is that the installation works. As for a judgement that code is
"ugly" or "elegant", I simply pointed out that from a users perspective, it
doesn't matter, only that the installation is successful.

I would be interested in hearing your evidence for "A philosophy that
always comes back to bite you in the butt". I think that is an arbitrary
aphorism which can clearly be challenged. There is nothing wrong with goal
directed efforts which place substantial emphasis on successful results.
We put men on the moon and brought them back that way.

It would be useful if you explained what you mean when you say (that
ideally) "all the disparate installers are functionally equivalent".

I think it is easy to say "Wouldn't a Single Unified NetRexx Installer be
nice" without actually considering what is involved in detail. This is a
case of "The perfect is the enemy of the good" - wasting time dreaming of a
pie-in-the-sky "wonderful solution" is counter productive.

As you have said, the platforms as significantly different. I say just get
on with it - Divide and Conquer the installation problem. Decide which
platform(s) will have the most installations, and develop installers for
those first. If commonality appears, take advantage of it, but don't start
with that as an amorphous design goal. I think that is just an excuse to
procrastinate.

It seems to me that with the current situation, in which there is no
installer, there may be a substantial number of potential users who will
unfortunately take the attitude "Why bother with this? They can't be
serious - they don't even have an installer!".

In developing the Eclipse NetRexx plugin, I was careful to make sure that
the installation uses the standard approach for the Eclipse environment,
and that it is just as easy as any other Eclipse plugin installation. I
suggest that if the desired end result is the installation of NetRexx so
that it is usable from a command line (terminal) interface (or other
environment) that the same criteria and approach be used.

Bill

--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft(r) Windows(r) and Linux web and application
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

ThSITC

Re: Installer

Hi Mike Measel,

*as far as I do know from correspondence (not on IBM NetRexx)*
with Kermit Kiser (www.kermitkiser.com) that's exactly the way he wants
to go...

Kermit, when I am wrong, please object.
Thomas.
=====================================================
Am 12.10.2011 13:42, schrieb Measel, Mike:

> Bill are you *really* going to try to do NetRexx development *on* an android or any other phone ? I mean seriously, come on.
>
> Some possibilities:
>
> 1) Basic version. No installer. Instructions for where the files go.
>
> 2) SDKs. Ready to install into the various IDEs.
>
> 3) Runtime. A single small jar for your phone, tablet, laptop or mainframe.
>
> 4) Premium. Any of the above packaged with InstallAnywhere --- your grandmother can click thru it. $9.95
>
> 5) Linux ISO for virtualbox. Ubuntu, jvm, Netrexx SDK, Jedit and various IDE's (yeah, just go crazy) and it all fits on a usb stick.
>
> Personally I like 1 and 5.
>
> Proceeds from #4 go to support Aruba.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 7:02 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Ibm-netrexx] Installer
>
> On 10/11/2011 3:49 PM, Chip Davis wrote:
>> Sorry Bill, but I have to disagree with just about everything you said.
> :-/
>> On 9/24/11 00:25 [hidden email] said:
>>> The only things necessary for almost all users are 3 web page buttons
>>> labelled: "Windows", "Mac" and "Linux/Unix", and the instructions "Click
> to
>>> install NetRexx".
>> ... and "USS" and "Android" and ... unless you don't really care about
> one of the largest environments and one of the fastest-growing ones.
>>> The machinery to get the job done is of little interest, except to the
>>> author(s) of the installation tool(s)
>> ... and the poor schlubs that have to support the tools.
>>> It is the results that count.
>> A philosophy that always comes back to bite you in the butt.
>>> Does it really matter how elegant or ugly it is under the covers?
>> Again, to the maintainers, it's crucial. Ugly code is much harder to
> fix/enhance. And mistakes here affect a disproportionately large number of
> users.
>> Of greater importance however is that all the disparate installers are
> functionally equivalent. Different platforms will demand different
> processes or we would be able to design a Single Unified NetRexx Installer.
> Absent a SUNI, we have to be confident that the resulting NetRexx
> installations are functionally equivalent. Think of it as a Single Unified
> NetRexx Installer Design.
>> -Chip-
> Chip,
>
> I seldom have problems with people who disagree with my opinions - they
> might be right :)
>
> I don't use it, but my understanding is that Android uses the Linux kernel.
> Obviously an installer for Linux/Unix should handle that, as well as for
> USS (which is a Unix 95 standard Unix implementation).
>
> I still suggest that the large preponderance of users who use an installer
> do not have the slightest interest in the code contained in the installer,
> and that is appropriate. Obviously you have installed many packages - can
> you honestly say that out of the last 10, you seriously took interest and
> action regarding the installer code in any of them? Chances are that you
> (like essentially all users) clicked on "install", followed the directions,
> and then immediately began testing and using the installed package.
>
> As for the support of the installer code, note that I didn't say or imply
> that the implementation quality should be substandard. What I said was
> that the implementation was of almost no concern to the user. The primary
> criteria is that the installation works. As for a judgement that code is
> "ugly" or "elegant", I simply pointed out that from a users perspective, it
> doesn't matter, only that the installation is successful.
>
> I would be interested in hearing your evidence for "A philosophy that
> always comes back to bite you in the butt". I think that is an arbitrary
> aphorism which can clearly be challenged. There is nothing wrong with goal
> directed efforts which place substantial emphasis on successful results.
> We put men on the moon and brought them back that way.
>
> It would be useful if you explained what you mean when you say (that
> ideally) "all the disparate installers are functionally equivalent".
>
> I think it is easy to say "Wouldn't a Single Unified NetRexx Installer be
> nice" without actually considering what is involved in detail. This is a
> case of "The perfect is the enemy of the good" - wasting time dreaming of a
> pie-in-the-sky "wonderful solution" is counter productive.
>
> As you have said, the platforms as significantly different. I say just get
> on with it - Divide and Conquer the installation problem. Decide which
> platform(s) will have the most installations, and develop installers for
> those first. If commonality appears, take advantage of it, but don't start
> with that as an amorphous design goal. I think that is just an excuse to
> procrastinate.
>
> It seems to me that with the current situation, in which there is no
> installer, there may be a substantial number of potential users who will
> unfortunately take the attitude "Why bother with this? They can't be
> serious - they don't even have an installer!".
>
> In developing the Eclipse NetRexx plugin, I was careful to make sure that
> the installation uses the standard approach for the Eclipse environment,
> and that it is just as easy as any other Eclipse plugin installation. I
> suggest that if the desired end result is the installation of NetRexx so
> that it is usable from a command line (terminal) interface (or other
> environment) that the same criteria and approach be used.
>
> Bill
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft(r) Windows(r) and Linux web and application
> hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ibm-netrexx mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/
>
>

--
Thomas Schneider (Founder of www.thsitc.com) Member of the Rexx Languge
Asscociation (www.rexxla.org) Member of the NetRexx Developer's Team
(www.netrexx.org)
_______________________________________________
Ibm-netrexx mailing list
[hidden email]
Online Archive : http://ibm-netrexx.215625.n3.nabble.com/

Thomas Schneider, Vienna, Austria (Europe) :-)

www.thsitc.com
www.db-123.com