Click Here
home features news forums classifieds faqs links search
5552 members 
Amiga Q&A /  Free for All /  Emulation /  Gaming / (Latest Posts)
Login

Nickname

Password

Lost Password?

Don't have an account yet?
Register now!

Support Amigaworld.net
Your support is needed and is appreciated as Amigaworld.net is primarily dependent upon the support of its users.
Donate

Menu
Main sections
Home
Features
News
Forums
Classifieds
Links
Downloads
Extras
OS4 Zone
IRC Network
AmigaWorld Radio
Newsfeed
Top Members
Amiga Dealers
Information
About Us
FAQs
Advertise
Polls
Terms of Service
Search

IRC Channel
Server: irc.amigaworld.net
Channel: #Amigaworld
Channel Policy and Guidelines

(Uses JAVA Applet and Port 1024)
Visit the Chatroom Website

Who's Online
 37 guest(s) on-line.
 1 member(s) on-line.


 sabworks

You are an anonymous user.
Register Now!
 sabworks:  3 mins ago
 drHirudo:  6 mins ago
 monstercoder:  19 mins ago
 alpyre:  24 mins ago
 Samurai_Crow:  25 mins ago
 kaffeine1:  37 mins ago
 Raffaele:  38 mins ago
 WolfpackN64:  54 mins ago
 Amigo1:  54 mins ago
 clusteruk:  56 mins ago

/  Forum Index
   /  Amiga OS4.x \ Workbench 4.x
      /  Things i would like to be addressed by OS developers
Register To Post

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 )
PosterThread
Chris_Y 
Re: Things i would like to be addressed by OS developers
Posted on 16-Feb-2017 23:50:43
#101 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Jun-2003
Posts: 3070
From: Beds, UK

@Hypex

Quote:
Quote:
I think you are deluded if you think the above is easier The installer tools effortlessly handles updating the user-startup without the prgramming careing about writing custom init.rc scripts etc...


And who uses those? Most of the stuff I download doesn't even have any installer. So if there are any tools they must be too complicated to use. Instead the complication is given to the user who has to jump through hoops just to get something to work.


Installer does this easily. Off the top of my head, it's something like:
(startup "myapp"
(prompt "I don't think the startup command even prompts")
(help @startup-help)
(include "assign myapp: " @default-dest)
)

I probably have the args wrong but it's that sort of easy.
On subsequent installs for the same program, Installer recognises this and overwrites the block for that program with the new one, so you don't get multiple entries in user-startup.

People seem to think Installer is difficult but it's silly simple. If you can write a program which is complicated enough to need installing then Installer should be a doddle.

_________________
"Miracles we do at once, the impossible takes a little longer" - AJS on Hyperion
Avatar is Tabitha by Eric W Schwartz

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: Things i would like to be addressed by OS developers
Posted on 17-Feb-2017 12:35:47
#102 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 8244
From: Greensborough, Australia

@Xenic

Quote:
I have a number of programs/scripts that need to be started in a specific order.


This is where a list or an editor to manage a list would be handy.

Quote:
Of course it would be even easier if the priority were displayed next to the module names in the "Startup modules" lister.


It would. And really you shouldn't need to think about it. Just a bit of drag and drop.

AFAIK I don't yet have items like that in my startup.

Quote:
The main reason I brought up WBStartup was to point out that the current direction of OS4 changes seems to be in the opposite direction that you suggest with a Startup directory replacing user-startup. My big request when it comes to changes to the way OS4 works is that they be optional, with and easy way to select what method is used.


Well my idea would be as an addition to User-Startup. Not replacement. So the user could chose which option he would like to take.

Quote:
How are you going to control the order of execution of files in a User Startup directory??


Probably the same as it would be done in WBStartup. In fact it could be more consistent to just bring that back. Since that could execute scripts.

Quote:
For example, if the SDK startup were in the User Startup directory how would I add a file containing an assignment like "assign subversion: SDK:Data/subversion" and be sure it would be executed after the SDK: assignment was added? I'm guessing you would need icons with startup priorities like old WBStartup.


When I first thought this idea up OS4 was still in diapers. And at first I was just thinking of assigns. So my idea back then was to assign everything as deferred. Most likely because doing it all at once on a 68k machine would slow it down. So I also sought to speed boot-up by delaying disk access. I still think this would work well as all assigns would be in memory so when one was accessed that depended on another it would be loaded in or rather, assigned.

But, I'm thinking if there are assign depends, then the system would look for the parent assign as usual. Since it may or may not exist at that point, the system would attempt to load from the logical device name. In case it didn't exist it would look it up in the assign list.

If it wasn't found then it would default to the usual "Please insert volume..." behaviour. So, in this way, order need not be the concern of the user, since all references would be looked up as and when needed.

Quote:
It would certainly have been more difficult if I would have needed to change multiple files in a User Startup directory.


Another thing that would benefit would be a system manager that could reassign and move assignments so they need not be edited directly. Or for the system to detect if something assign was being moved. Of course it would only be easily detected from the Workbench.

The main reason for the system so to speak would be so programs could be easily installed without user intervention. So making it easier for developers to write up an installer script. And easier for users just wanting to install and go.

It would work best with a simple install system based on a simple script language that specified what assigns, paths and other items needed to exist at start-up. With an optional copy. Yes this sounds like what we have but it would be simpler. Less clicks. And a more simple straightforward way of doing an installer script that would be easy to learn. An EasyInstaller. -D

Quote:
I disabled APPDIR shortly after it was introduced but not because of seperate files. I did it for reasons like:


That's fair enough. I think things were fine without it. Since apps like MultiView had their place. I suppose in some way it can be used to move an app around and still reference it as the same point. Though PROGDIR was doing fine the apps themselves.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: Things i would like to be addressed by OS developers
Posted on 17-Feb-2017 12:51:09
#103 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 8244
From: Greensborough, Australia

@Chris_Y

Quote:
Installer does this easily. Off the top of my head, it's something like:


Perhaps it can but I hardly see anyone use it. It also can be annoying to the user. With two many pages to go through. Something simpler must be needed.

Quote:
Installer does this easily. Off the top of my head, it's something like:


Well it sounds like it has the tools to do the job so perhaps we need a mini installer.

Quote:
On subsequent installs for the same program, Installer recognises this and overwrites the block for that program with the new one, so you don't get multiple entries in user-startup.


It would be good to access this functionality externally.

Quote:
People seem to think Installer is difficult but it's silly simple. If you can write a program which is complicated enough to need installing then Installer should be a doddle.


Yes I suppose that would be right Especially with tools like InstallerGen. Though they seem to be moving away from Installer for system installs. But perhaps it is not simple enough. Something as simple as installing instructions needed. Where they practically could be used as a script.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
broadblues 
Re: Things i would like to be addressed by OS developers
Posted on 17-Feb-2017 13:56:50
#104 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 20-Jul-2004
Posts: 4036
From: Portsmouth England

@Chris_Y

Quote:

People seem to think Installer is difficult but it's silly simple. If you can write a program which is complicated enough to need installing then Installer should be a doddle.


Absolutely!

_________________
BroadBlues On Blues BroadBlues On Amiga Walker Broad

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Chris_Y 
Re: Things i would like to be addressed by OS developers
Posted on 17-Feb-2017 16:35:25
#105 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Jun-2003
Posts: 3070
From: Beds, UK

@Hypex

Quote:
It would be good to access this functionality externally.


Try http://www.unsatisfactorysoftware.co.uk/download.php?file=fitr

_________________
"Miracles we do at once, the impossible takes a little longer" - AJS on Hyperion
Avatar is Tabitha by Eric W Schwartz

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Xenic 
Re: Things i would like to be addressed by OS developers
Posted on 17-Feb-2017 17:27:33
#106 ]
Super Member
Joined: 2-Feb-2004
Posts: 1192
From: Pennsylvania, USA

@Hypex
I suppose it could work if the directory only contains deferred assignments. If might also make "UnInstall" scripts more practical. I don't think I've seen an "Uninstaller" that could accurately remove assignments. It would certainly be easier to remove an assignment by removing an assignment file than to scan a user-startup for an assignment to remove.
As I said, I can't complain about adding such a system as long as my user-startup isn't removed or disabled in the process.

_________________
X1000 with 2GB memory & OS4.1FE

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Chris_Y 
Re: Things i would like to be addressed by OS developers
Posted on 17-Feb-2017 23:16:35
#107 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 21-Jun-2003
Posts: 3070
From: Beds, UK

@Xenic

Quote:
I don't think I've seen an "Uninstaller" that could accurately remove assignments. It would certainly be easier to remove an assignment by removing an assignment file than to scan a user-startup for an assignment to remove.


Installer can remove assigns with the startup function. Trouble is nobody ever writes uninstall scripts!

_________________
"Miracles we do at once, the impossible takes a little longer" - AJS on Hyperion
Avatar is Tabitha by Eric W Schwartz

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: Things i would like to be addressed by OS developers
Posted on 18-Feb-2017 10:47:39
#108 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 8244
From: Greensborough, Australia

@Chris_Y

Good one with fltr. Now is that a fitter approach or does it act like a filter?

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: Things i would like to be addressed by OS developers
Posted on 18-Feb-2017 11:05:31
#109 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 8244
From: Greensborough, Australia

@Xenic

Quote:
It would certainly be easier to remove an assignment by removing an assignment file than to scan a user-startup for an assignment to remove.


That's one of the things I was thinking. Adding lines to a script can be easy enough but removing them is another matter. Either way an original file must be modified in place and usually it would need to be completely rewritten. Removing a file would be less stressful.

I've rarely seen an uninstaller but I'm inclined to agree removing a file would be easier. Removing the assignment is another matter. If the program is deleted then it has to go first and hopefully without anything depending on it or locked to it.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Tomppeli 
Re: Things i would like to be addressed by OS developers
Posted on 18-Feb-2017 13:54:39
#110 ]
Super Member
Joined: 18-Jun-2004
Posts: 1551
From: Home land of Santa, sauna, sisu and salmiakki

You guys should realize PROGDIR: works fine nowadays. It was somewhere in 1990s when that was broken, if I can remember, when people started to use installers and putting dependencies into various wrong places on sys:. Keep all software specific dependencies in the programs own directory and use PROGDIR:. That way you won't need assigns or installers at all.

I've been using a Mac around a year. Mac has those special executables containing a filesystem where you can cd into an executable in a Shell. All config files and dependencies are stored there. Such feature would give a completely new meaning to PROGDIR: on AmigaOS. I don't know if elf format allows that or maybe an .adf could be used, double clicking it in Workbench would get the .adf mounted and the executable launched from C dir of that adf, for example. That way all the related files can be moved around together with the executable itself. No assigns or installers needed.

Something like AmiCygnix is a different matter because it's a huge collection of a window manager, file manager and a lot other. That needs a proper installer because it's like installing the OS the first time.

Last edited by Tomppeli on 18-Feb-2017 at 01:56 PM.

_________________
Rock lobster bit me, so excuse me.
X1000 + AmigaOS4.1 FE. Be authentic.
"Anyone can build a fast CPU. The trick is to build a fast system." -Seymour Cray

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Hypex 
Re: Things i would like to be addressed by OS developers
Posted on 18-Feb-2017 15:13:00
#111 ]
Elite Member
Joined: 6-May-2007
Posts: 8244
From: Greensborough, Australia

@Tomppeli

I don't recall any installers putting files in the wrong places but I do recall that they used to clog up the system drawers with libraries. Even if it was a custom application library. Perhaps part of the problem is redundant thinking that if a library is shared it should be in the system so it doesn't waste space.

I of course agree with you. PROGDIR has been around for centuries in Amiga time. And provides all that we need. If a program insists on an assign it could done itself!

Path is another matter but I used to put all commands in a command directory. I don't recall one that needed it's own path. Why does it need to know?

You raise an interestng point about the Mac. You know, in a sense, it works exactly like AmigaOS. It looks in specific folders for libraries. And OSX doesn't exactly have a package manager like on Linux. The thing is on AmigaOS it is exactly the same and has been for years. Even with SOBJs complicating things with a bigger mess and more crashes the OS looks for them in the PROGDIR. The same as it looks for LIBS.

The problem is developers are being constantly ignorant of this. They should know what libraries they need and include them. No need for an installer even. Shared objects are more complicated but are easily included in a sub directory. And I think if an application isn't a full static build they should be included. I consider any program that doesn't work after I have fulfilled the requirements to be broken.

As a final note do you know what happens when Amiga developers try and compile OSX software? They release broken software that doesn't work! I downloaded some Amiga related OSX software and could never get it to work because it lacked solibs. I was left to compiling my own but there was always some breakage and I never had exactly what the developer had. In the end I just gave up.

 Status: Offline
Profile     Report this post  
Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 )

[ home ][ about us ] [ forums ][ classifieds ] [ links ][ news archive ] [ link to us ][ user account ]
Copyright 2000 - 2017 Amigaworld.net.

Amigaworld.net was originally founded by David Doyle