Time to release 1.0 (installers)

[Georg Wrede]

Walter Bright wrote:
> "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
> news:dshpvp$m1g$1 at digitaldaemon.com...
> 
>> Anders F Björklund wrote: <snip>
>> 
>>> Walter does not want to do it for DMD (for Windows and Linux), 
>>> and due to the non-distribute license nobody else can either.
>> 
>> <snip>
>> 
>> Does DMD really need an installer?  Opening a .zip file and
>> extracting its contents isn't that difficult an operation.
> 
> 
> I personally don't like installers - not because they do a bad job,
> but because I never know *what* they're doing to my system. Are they
> mucking with the registry? Installing spyware? Replacing uptodate
> drivers with older, buggy versions? Phoning home?

Whoah! Installing a 'nice FREE screensaver with live paradise scenery' 
is a bit different than installing Mozilla or Firefox.

> With zip files, I can see what's going to happen, and my unzipper
> isn't going to execute any code from the archive.

We're talking Windoze here! Users simply consider a zip thingy 
home-made, no matter how good the program itself would be. And they hate 
having to do _anything_ themselves.

> In keeping with avoiding an installer, dmd is designed to not require
> any registry entries, environment variable edits, or even having the
> PATH set. Uninstall is as easy as just blowing away the directory
> it's installed in.

Just _having_ an installer doesn't create registry tweaks, environment 
mucking, or path changes. It's just another brick in the wall of deceit 
and make-believe that is _required_ between the user and what's 
happening for real. And if there's nothing happening, the easier for 
you. But it sure has to _look_ like a Grand Opening.