I agree but not all users are comfortable with downloading and installing
required components from different sources.
It would be a judgment call for each application provider to determine how
do they perceive their potential users and what would they offer for
so-called one-stop solution.
It would be the same for asking a user to put together a complete system
from different sources, which everyone could do it with certain amount of
learning and efforts, but the mass majority still prefer to use system
providers for a complete solution.
In any case, I wouldn't say it's "pointless" but more of different
considerations for different prospects.
Assuming everyone is computer literate, on the other hand, is quite naive in
my humble opinion.
"gareth erskine-jones" <gsej@uberdog.net> wrote in message
news:repb45d1s11ea1cjfu7ld2msdq53of7aqk@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> Then I ran a minimal winforms app (built against the 3.5 version of
>>> the framework). The app simply errored ("the application failed to
>>> initialize properly").
>>>
>>> I built a setup package for the app, and ran that on the machine. This
>>> time I got the prompt to install the framework:
>>
>>
>>More thoughtful application providers would bundle required components
>>(e.g.
>>.Net framework, java runtime, or DirectX etc.), and the install routine
>>will
>>first check the system to see if the required component(s) had been
>>installed, and if not, it will perform the installation for the
>>component(s)
>>before proceeding to the main program.
>
> I've never had to package a .NET app for distribution, so I might be
> mistaken about this, but I'd imagine that given the size of the
> framework, and the fact that MS appear to provide a reliable mechanism
> for a deployment package to direct a user to the appropriate page of
> their site, that including the framework with every distributed
> application would be fairly pointless, not to mention greatly
> increasing the size of the download.
>
> GSEJ
>> ISTM that you said programs should remove the .Net stuff, [...]
>
> I didn't or kindly point me to where I said that and I will apologize.
From your post that I first replied to:
"Also, I seem to remember that some programs will remove all of 'its'
components upon uninstallation including previously installed components
(e.g. .Net framework, etc.) while some programs will not. So it would be
better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use for
other programs or wishes it to be totally removed."
In particular, your remark that "some programs will remove all of 'its'
components".
I have to say that your writing was a bit unclear to me. Your phrase "More
thoughtful application providers..." made me think that you *wanted*
programs to do everything you said in the post; on rereading it, I see that
it might not be what you meant, since the phrase could have related to what
you said about installation but not to your comments on uninstallation.
In any case, I feel strongly that programs should not install Windows
components that they require, and should never ever uninstall such
components when they are finished with them. At installation time, they
should notify the user that his system is not compatible with the
installation (explaining why!), and at uninstallation, they should do
nothing.
BTW, many of the serious stability problems with older Windows versions was
that many programs quietly and preemptively installed their own versions of
Windows DLLs in the Windows directory structure - and some of those DLLs
broke Windows or other programs that relied on their *own* DLLs.
And perhaps, after all, we are actually in agreement :-)
> I agree but not all users are comfortable with downloading and installing
> required components from different sources.
In particular, the .Net Framework is offered by Microsoft as part of its
normal update process, so this argument is specious.
> It would be a judgment call for each application provider to determine how
> do they perceive their potential users and what would they offer for
> so-called one-stop solution.
The correct judgment is clear...
> It would be the same for asking a user to put together a complete system
> from different sources, which everyone could do it with certain amount of
> learning and efforts, but the mass majority still prefer to use system
> providers for a complete solution.
See above.
> In any case, I wouldn't say it's "pointless" but more of different
> considerations for different prospects.
> Assuming everyone is computer literate, on the other hand, is quite naive in
> my humble opinion.
So when third party developers offer their own versions of components taken
from Microsoft, perhaps also out of date, and as a result of this break the
system, what is this computer-illiterate person going to do?
> "gareth erskine-jones" <gsej@uberdog.net> wrote in message
> news:repb45d1s11ea1cjfu7ld2msdq53of7aqk@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:
> BTW, many of the serious stability problems with older Windows versions
> was
> that many programs quietly and preemptively installed their own versions
> of
> Windows DLLs in the Windows directory structure - and some of those DLLs
> broke Windows or other programs that relied on their *own* DLLs.
I agree totally. But we are not talking about to replace Window's DLLs with
its *own* DLLs. In this particular case, we are talking about if runtime
components such as .Net framework (or DirectX, for example) should be
included in the installation package or should it require the user to go to
their sites for downloading and installing required components before they
can install the program.
> In any case, I feel strongly that programs should not install Windows
> components that they require, and should never ever uninstall such
> components when they are finished with them. At installation time, they
> should notify the user that his system is not compatible with the
> installation (explaining why!), and at uninstallation, they should do
> nothing.
I understood your concern but I cannot agree with you for all scenarios.
> "Also, I seem to remember that some programs will remove all of 'its'
> components upon uninstallation including previously installed components
> (e.g. .Net framework, etc.) while some programs will not. So it would be
> better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use
> for
> other programs or wishes it to be totally removed."
>
It is just a friendly reminder for users to check if there are any left
behind components, as for why and how to deal with it, it would be a
different subject.
"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:xf9u6gec8wd6$.1a641yufe84o1.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:09:11 -0700, xfile wrote:
>
>>> ISTM that you said programs should remove the .Net stuff, [...]
>>
>> I didn't or kindly point me to where I said that and I will apologize.
>
> From your post that I first replied to:
>
> "Also, I seem to remember that some programs will remove all of 'its'
> components upon uninstallation including previously installed components
> (e.g. .Net framework, etc.) while some programs will not. So it would be
> better to check if those components are still there if one needs to use
> for
> other programs or wishes it to be totally removed."
>
> In particular, your remark that "some programs will remove all of 'its'
> components".
>
> I have to say that your writing was a bit unclear to me. Your phrase "More
> thoughtful application providers..." made me think that you *wanted*
> programs to do everything you said in the post; on rereading it, I see
> that
> it might not be what you meant, since the phrase could have related to
> what
> you said about installation but not to your comments on uninstallation.
>
> In any case, I feel strongly that programs should not install Windows
> components that they require, and should never ever uninstall such
> components when they are finished with them. At installation time, they
> should notify the user that his system is not compatible with the
> installation (explaining why!), and at uninstallation, they should do
> nothing.
>
> BTW, many of the serious stability problems with older Windows versions
> was
> that many programs quietly and preemptively installed their own versions
> of
> Windows DLLs in the Windows directory structure - and some of those DLLs
> broke Windows or other programs that relied on their *own* DLLs.
>
> And perhaps, after all, we are actually in agreement :-)
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
> In particular, the .Net Framework is offered by Microsoft as part of its
> normal update process, so this argument is specious.
There are controlled environments in which not all Windows components will
be included when the systems were set up and Windows Update will not
performed by the end user and not all Windows updates will be rolled out.
Also, not all home users will do Windows Update and many have never clicked
Windows Update during their use of computers
> The correct judgment is clear...
The correct judgment is when THEIR customers and user are satisfied and
happy
> So when third party developers offer their own versions of components
> taken
> from Microsoft, perhaps also out of date, and as a result of this break
> the
> system, what is this computer-illiterate person going to do?
First of all, "no their own versions" got involved in this discussion as far
as I can see.
"..[perhaps also out of date]" - could be, so a well-established application
provider needs to constantly update their programs too. I cannot speak for
all
> as a result of this break the
> system, what is this computer-illiterate person going to do?
They utilize whatever help channels available to them, including help desk,
customer service, newsgroups, forums, friends, relatives, and so on and so
on.
"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:1fo2q6ibcjja5$.26c6ziojn4g1.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 04:29:31 -0700, xfile wrote:
>
>> I agree but not all users are comfortable with downloading and installing
>> required components from different sources.
>
> In particular, the .Net Framework is offered by Microsoft as part of its
> normal update process, so this argument is specious.
>
>> It would be a judgment call for each application provider to determine
>> how
>> do they perceive their potential users and what would they offer for
>> so-called one-stop solution.
>
> The correct judgment is clear...
>
>> It would be the same for asking a user to put together a complete system
>> from different sources, which everyone could do it with certain amount of
>> learning and efforts, but the mass majority still prefer to use system
>> providers for a complete solution.
>
> See above.
>
>> In any case, I wouldn't say it's "pointless" but more of different
>> considerations for different prospects.
>
>> Assuming everyone is computer literate, on the other hand, is quite naive
>> in
>> my humble opinion.
>
> So when third party developers offer their own versions of components
> taken
> from Microsoft, perhaps also out of date, and as a result of this break
> the
> system, what is this computer-illiterate person going to do?
>
>> "gareth erskine-jones" <gsej@uberdog.net> wrote in message
>> news:repb45d1s11ea1cjfu7ld2msdq53of7aqk@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:13:22 -0700, "xfile" <coucou@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
"Blithe" wrote:
> However - it occurs to me that I never got a firm idea
> just how important .Net Framework is to the average
> user like myself....
.NET Framework is the runtime engine and environment
for apps that have been developed with the .NET libraries
and the .NET languages. It provides the virtual machine on
which the compiled .NET languages run and it provides the
support environment. It sits on top of Windows, and it uses
the services of Windows, but it provides its own value-added
services that the .NET-based apps need to run. The advantage
to the developer is that it allows a shorter development time by
taking over of the tedium of re-inventing various coding "wheels"
and by removing some of the common sources of bugs (e.g.
memory "leaks" due to non-release of memory resources). It
also allows the developer to use a language that he/she may be
most familiar with, e.g. COBOL.NET, Fortran.NET, etc., and
not only C# (Microsoft's answer to Java). As an environment,
..NET Framework shouldn't be uninstalled just because one app
that used it was uninstalled. If that does indeed sometimes happen,
it would be due to an error by the writer of the installation package.
Consider the runtime engine for Java. Would you uninstall it or
expect it to be uninstalled just because the app for which it was
installed was uninstalled? What about other apps, either currently
installed or to be installed in the future? It's a necessary environment
for an increasing number of apps, much like an operating system
or a browser. Would you uninstall either of those environments
because it was no longer needed by one of your apps? BTW,
I've read that Microsoft is developing a version of .NET Framework
to run on Unix/Linux, and I'd imagine on Solaris. If it succeeds, and
if it does reduce development time better than Java and Java's
various frameworks, Oracle/Sun might have a problem.
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009 18:17:10 -0700, Timothy Daniels wrote:
> "Blithe" wrote:
>> However - it occurs to me that I never got a firm idea
>> just how important .Net Framework is to the average
>> user like myself....
>
> .NET Framework is the runtime engine and environment
> for apps that have been developed with the .NET libraries
> and the .NET languages. It provides the virtual machine on
> which the compiled .NET languages run and it provides the
> support environment. It sits on top of Windows, and it uses
> the services of Windows, but it provides its own value-added
> services that the .NET-based apps need to run. The advantage
> to the developer is that it allows a shorter development time by
> taking over of the tedium of re-inventing various coding "wheels"
> and by removing some of the common sources of bugs (e.g.
> memory "leaks" due to non-release of memory resources). It
> also allows the developer to use a language that he/she may be
> most familiar with, e.g. COBOL.NET, Fortran.NET, etc., and
> not only C# (Microsoft's answer to Java). As an environment,
> .NET Framework shouldn't be uninstalled just because one app
> that used it was uninstalled. If that does indeed sometimes happen,
> it would be due to an error by the writer of the installation package.
> Consider the runtime engine for Java. Would you uninstall it or
> expect it to be uninstalled just because the app for which it was
> installed was uninstalled? What about other apps, either currently
> installed or to be installed in the future? It's a necessary environment
> for an increasing number of apps, much like an operating system
> or a browser. Would you uninstall either of those environments
> because it was no longer needed by one of your apps? BTW,
> I've read that Microsoft is developing a version of .NET Framework
> to run on Unix/Linux, and I'd imagine on Solaris. If it succeeds, and
> if it does reduce development time better than Java and Java's
> various frameworks, Oracle/Sun might have a problem.
>
> *TimDaniels*
>I've read that Microsoft is developing a version of .NET Framework
>to run on Unix/Linux, and I'd imagine on Solaris. If it succeeds, and
>if it does reduce development time better than Java and Java's
>various frameworks, Oracle/Sun might have a problem.
Fat chance. Sun did screw up big time marketing and selling Java on
windows, but there's little to no chance the Unix world will get
behind an MS based application framework.
Re: .NET Framework - how 'important?' 
Linear Mode
