.Net packaging/wrapper application?

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

"Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton@co mcast.netwrote

>I couldn't disagree more strongly. Anyone planning on building a widely
>deployed .Net application needs to be doing this.

But, personally, I would never
choose .NET for a horizontal, mass distributed application. That
would have to be something more standalone - like C++, Delphi, or
maybe PowerBasic (personally, I'd probably choose C++).

I agree. Completly.

>The lack of broad installation support for the .Net framework makes this
>a
>must. In relative terms, nobody has the framework installed. Installation
>of
>the framework requires Admin rights and a reboot.

Nobody? Really. Do you have stats on that.

In relative terms, very few people do (I don't have numbers, or I would
provide them). It's not installed by default with any O/S or major product,
nor is it pushed by Windows Update.

To have it installed the user either had to manually install it (via an
optional Windows Update), or be running a program that's already installed
it. Both are unlikley scenarios in the general case. Especially for the
non-tech savy users, that small "cute" apps typically target.

>... this means if you install the Framework for them, via a bootstrapper
>or
>something similar, the user has a piss-poor opinion of your software
>before
>they've even run a line of your code.

Why? Because you install a dependency? Please.

Because, the installation process for .Net sometimes takes over an hour. It
also frequently fails to install at all. In the coffee-house scenario, where
users are trying to download and install your app via the free wireless,
it's not usable.

Also, for some reason I don't understand, .Net is signifigantly slower to
install via a bootstrapper than via the stand-alone MSI.

The end result is a bunch of people who were willing to install the app now
think it sucks. They don't know it was the .Net framework that had issues,
they just know they tried to install SoapBox, it took an hour, and ultimatly
failed. This makes up look bad, and our software takes 100% of the blame.

>It's very sad that ".Net on the Desktop" isn't a reality. Unfortuantly,
>the
>reality is that MS hasn't pushed it out via Windows update, and doesn't
>install it as part of Office, IE, or any other widespread product that I
>know of.

>
They have pushed via windows update - but as an optional update.

Optional updates don't really do anyone any good. I would love to see the MS
numbers on the this. I would really like to see the reason behind why they
havnen't pushed it wider. I suspect it's due to the high failure rate on
install - especially for the .Net 3.0 stuff.

>... I've lost alot of sleep over this exact problem, and it's a hot
>button
>for me.

>
If it's a problem for you, then I respectfully have to say your using
the wrong toolset.

I agree with you. It's sad, but .Net isn't a suitable toolset for building
widely deployed desktop applications.

The problem for me was a failure to check my/our assumptions. We assumed the
..Net Framework was widely deployed - via Office / Windows update / IE7 / XP
SP2. This turned out to be incorrect, and has caused much pain. Nobody to
blame there by oursleves for such a poor assumption.

--
Chris Mullins

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

Chris,

Will you be so kind to pay more attention to the way you quote, the way you
do this, brings for me Tom's message in a complete other context than I was
assuming what he wrote.

Cor

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

Hrm. I just went back and re-read, and I don't think I mis-quoted anything,
or took anything out of context. What did I misquote, and goof the context
on?

I try to quote as little as possible, while still retaining context...

--
Chris Mullins

"Cor Ligthert[MVP]" <notmyfirstname @planet.nlwrote in message
news:464BB461-55CB-43DF-85E0-CD0F305E877E@mi crosoft.com...

Chris,
>
Will you be so kind to pay more attention to the way you quote, the way
you do this, brings for me Tom's message in a complete other context than
I was assuming what he wrote.
>
Cor

[Registered User]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:46:26 -0500, "jim" <jim@home.netwr ote:

>What is it with Microsoft MVPs that they do not read about a subject before
>posting on it?
>
>Thinstall and Xenocode change NOTHING about the .Net framework or your
>application. They simply wrap all needed .Net functionality and your
>executable and any dependent files (like DLLs or ActiveX controls or other
>files that your .Net app needs) into a single executable file.
>

Your initial post isn't very clear about what you want. These products
are mentioned but nothing is said about the functionality they
provide. It is a bit much to expect everyone to read about these tools
just to understand what question you're really asking.

>This means that your potential customer that is still on dial-up, the 25+MB
>.Net framework may never get downloaded so your apps are worthless to them.
>
>Are people still on dial up? Yep. The last hard figures I could find on
>short notice said "It turns out that as few as 28 percent of American
>households today have access to broadband Internet. That's according to
>reporter Richard Hoffman in a Nov. 20, 2006 Information Week article, citing
>data from Government Accountability Office." -
>http://blog.tmcnet.com/wireless-mobi...onnections.asp.
>And, while this report is now just over 1 year old, even if the # of
>households with DSL doubled in 12 months (which is HIGHLY unlikely) that
>means that 44% of households in the US are still on dial up.
>

You know nothing about anyone's potential customer base except perhaps
your own. If the app is important enough to the user, the user will
find a way to obtain and install the framework. Minimum requirements
should always be set. Will Thinstall/Xenocode really let your app run
on _any_ computer?

>As for your comparison of .Net prgramming to the use of Thinstall or
>Xenocode, that only proves that you haven't read anything about either of
>them.
>

I haven't read about these tools because I have no reason to. You want
to write an app using .NET tools and have it run as a single
executable on a platform which does not have.NET installed. Perhaps
you have chosen the wrong tools with which to write the application.

>MVPs.......G od save us from Microsoft MVPs.
>

You may have fewer problems with MVPs responding to your queries in
the future.

regards
A.G.

[Michael Nemtsev [MVP]]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

Hello jim,

So, if nobody made it yet, then it means it have some serious limitation
which we can't see right now
there is no silver bullet in development world.

---
WBR,
Michael Nemtsev [.NET/C# MVP] :: blog: http://spaces.live.com/laflour

"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we
miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it" (c) Michelangelo


jI'm telling you....Thinstal l-capability is the answer to distribution
jissues, DLL/version hell issues, permission issues, setup issues and
jeven helps maintain security on the desktop. Why nobody is making an
jaffordable version for the masses, or has taken this on as an open
jsource project is beyond me.
j>
jThe benefits are so great that NOT including this technology in .Net
jstudio is simply negligent.
j>

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

"jim" <jim@home.netwr ote:

What is it with Microsoft MVPs that they do not read about a subject
before posting on it?

Hrm. Let's see:

You post questions on free, public, forum to get answers from people.

.... are these people giving answers being paid? Nope.

MVPs.......God save us from Microsoft MVPs.

That's an awfully broad brush you're painting with. Sure you want to stand
by a statement like that?

--
Chris Mullins

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

"Tom Shelton" <tom_shelton@co mcast.netwrote

>Optional updates don't really do anyone any good. I would love
>to see the MS numbers on the this. I would really like to see the
>reason behind why they havnen't pushed it wider. I suspect it's
>due to the high failure rate on install - especially for the .Net 3.0
>stuff.

Have you really had that many failures? Seriously, I've
installed .NET on hundreds of machines (and I mean that literally) -
and I can't ever recall having it fail....

We haven't seen that many true failures- maybe a few dozen. We've seens lots
of "Took a reallllly long time. Wireless networke died after 40 minutes. Had
to restart. You product sucks. FOAD." In nearly all these cases (the ones
we've been able to analyze) the culprit has been the very long .Net
framework install.

The problem is when the install fails, we hear all about it, as people
quickly get very vocal. Then it's on forms that get archived and indexed by
search engines, and the next thing you know the top hits for the product are
all "Unable to installed.", "Broken", "Sucks".

Everything seems to install quite well on fresh computers. But on computers
that have been around a while (and are often infected with stuff), or are
running strange virus / malware scanners, or have had beta versions of stuff
installed, it seems to fail the most.

On the other hand, it's... very frustrating.

I personally have had to rebuild 2 dev workstations due to .Net install
failures. These involve beta versions of the .Net 3 & 3.5 frameworks that
failed to uninstall properly. I expect some of this given that they're beta,
but it's very frustrating how fragile the installers are..

--
Chris Mullins

[jim]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?


"Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]" <cmullins@yahoo .comwrote in message
news:OlDvFFNSIH A.1188@TK2MSFTN GP04.phx.gbl...

"jim" <jim@home.netwr ote:

>What is it with Microsoft MVPs that they do not read about a subject
>before posting on it?

>
Hrm. Let's see:
>
You post questions on free, public, forum to get answers from people.
>
... are these people giving answers being paid? Nope.
>

>MVPs.......G od save us from Microsoft MVPs.

>
That's an awfully broad brush you're painting with. Sure you want to stand
by a statement like that?

My apologies to the Microsoft MVP community as a whole. But, the majority
of MVPs that "contribute " to threads seem to be adverse to actually reading
about or trying to understand the topic that they are responding to.

This majority of responders makes the MVP community as a whole look quite
foolish.

jim

[jim]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

Peter,

That's a very interesting example. Thanks!

jim

"Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]" <pbromberg@yaho o.NoSpamMaam.co mwrote in message
news:79730354-E91F-4362-ACCA-A9C500FA1E83@mi crosoft.com...

>I recently wrote a short article on this subject with a simple example,
>just
out of curiosity:
>

http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorials/aspnet/04aa7525-f153-4907-b0e8-10ac501f430a/obfuscation-and-packaging.aspx

>
Hope it helps.
-- Peter
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
MetaFinder: http://www.blogmetafinder.com
>
>
"jim" wrote:
>

>I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and
>any
>needed .Net parts) into a single exe.
>>
>I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your
>exes)
>and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). But, I'd like
>something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist programmer.
>>
>This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it as
>a
>single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application suite.
>It
>would simplify the shipping & installation and not even require the end
>user
>to have .Net installed or to install the application. It also avoids DLL
>and .Net Version Hell.
>>
>If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies should
>be
>it.
>>
>If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not require
>per
>copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.
>>
>Thanks!
>>
>jim
>>
>>
>>

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

Jim,

Mostly we read a lot, some of the contributions from jim@home.net on
Internet this month.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.government.abuse/browse_thread/thread/efa766e0ff2a8e55/13096eda5f01c33a?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#13096eda5f01c33a

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.energy/browse_thread/thread/46b2557ae2783f31/f92d76d753ba8287?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#f92d76d753ba8287

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/b7ae194c45232f28/ce229c7925ec802a?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#ce229c7925ec802a

A happy trolling new year,

Cor

[Homer J. Simpson]

Re: .Net packaging/wrapper application?

This means that your potential customer that is still on dial-up, the

25+MB .Net framework may never get downloaded so your apps are worthless
to them.

I don't know the details of Thinstall and/or Xenocode, I've only been
reading through this thread, but for this particular point to actually
support your position, you'd have to have your one-EXE program include:
- your app's own code
- the Thinstall/Xenocode code
- the .NET framework

....and all of these components together somehow would have to result in a
single file that's smaller than the 25MB .NET framework on its own...is that
correct?

And then as soon as you have another application that also uses
Thinstall/Xenocode, it would also have to include the same components
internally. IOW, a copy of .NET is wrapped up in every single application.

Please tell me this is not how it works.