Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... Last
↑↑↑ Old messages ↑↑↑            ↓↓↓ New messages ↓↓↓
[#] Wed Aug 03 2011 15:44:39 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

yes, these IBM ones are nice. if you're alone in the dark ;-)

People in my office don't want to sit near me because of my type M and how fast I type.
Well tough shit on them.

[#] Fri Aug 05 2011 09:28:55 EDT from the_mgt @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I have the mission to install an Exchange Server 2010 here and I almost failed when I was asked to enter the organisation name. Until I realised that I can't use umlauts... I want to cry right now



[#] Sun Aug 07 2011 19:31:53 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Hope you've got a beefy box to run it on. Exchange 2010 is a real pig for resources.

[#] Mon Aug 08 2011 09:11:47 EDT from the_mgt @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

No, this is just some leftover desktop with some pentium dual cpu. And they are planning on using it only for calendaring or whatever the boss came up with. The Installer itself is btw one of the crappiest pieces of software evar. Instead of activating all needed roles and install whatever servicepack or update it takes to finally get Exchange installed, it just keeps on failing each time I changed something, rebooted the machine and rerun the installer until all requirements are met. Hurray for automation!



[#] Mon Aug 08 2011 14:07:57 EDT from skpacman @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Does anyone know of a good (free, open source preferred) .exe installation creator?

I've been using Setup Factory 9 Personal but I need something that has a bit less confusion and more get-it-done.

I suppose I could find the professional version of Setup Factory since it has what I'm looking for, but don't want to pay for it, nor do I want a cracked version, or "trial" version.

I want something that is _free_ and isn't just a dumbed-down version of the "pro" release.

 

Ideas?

 

-- 
Stephen D King
skpacman8629@gmail.com



[#] Mon Aug 08 2011 20:10:59 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Hrm... most of my experience with setups involved working with Microsoft Installer, which isn't really an EXE so much as an MSI file (although it was still double-click install).

Even there, I don't know of a lot of free tools for it that are easy to work with.

[#] Mon Aug 08 2011 20:53:20 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'd go with the pirated version myself.

[#] Tue Aug 09 2011 11:42:21 EDT from skpacman @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I'd go with the pirated version myself.

yeah... i resorted to doing that for now... Setup Factory is the easiest option out there, but for an _actual_ license is like $380USD... so i found a cracked version and scanned it...



[#] Wed Aug 10 2011 08:22:09 EDT from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I always thought Advanced Installer was pretty easy to use.

Oh, heh... I didn't realize they had a freeware version. I doubt it makes .exes, though.

[#] Tue Aug 16 2011 15:33:07 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

So firefox 6 is available, and I was about to upgrade being all bleedin-edge n shit, and the first thing it said was firebug will not be compatible.

So I realized one of the benifits of this major version upgrade every 3 weeks thing is that all your plugins will always be out of date.

[#] Tue Aug 16 2011 16:13:05 EDT from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Chrome is at major version 13, clearly they have to keep incrementing until they've passed Chrome.

[#] Tue Aug 16 2011 20:30:21 EDT from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I don't understand this rapid release model.  I used to wait but from what I understand once the new number is out, the old number is no longer supported.



[#] Thu Aug 18 2011 21:29:05 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

not for very long.
the rapid release thing is to keep up with chrome.
The funny thing is everybody's working harder, but nobody's making any more money.

[#] Fri Aug 19 2011 15:58:33 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Excellent -- soon we will have software of infinitely high quality and functionality for free. :)

Version numbers have become a joke pretty much across the board anyway. No one knew why Sun chose to go from Solaris 2.6 to Solaris 7, instead of just calling it 2.7, for example. Then there's the whole Microsoft "the year is the version number" thing.

It used to be the whole x.yz or x.y.z thing, where incrementing X meant a major new release, incrementing Y was a minor new release, and Z was maintenance.
But ever since marketing people started getting involved in version numbers, it's been an area completely dominated by douchebaggery (like everything touched by marketing).

Since we are early in the century, perhaps the model Ubuntu uses, where the version number is x.y, and where x = (year % 100) and y = (month), makes the most sense. Projects which expect to release maintenance versions more than once per month could do x.y.z for that.

[#] Fri Aug 19 2011 17:02:35 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Microsoft "the year is the version number" thing.

I bet that will change soon enough when some ms marketing guru realized they have to release lots of new version numbers becuse google is.

[#] Fri Aug 19 2011 17:04:00 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Since we are early in the century, perhaps the model Ubuntu uses,
where the version number is x.y, and where x = (year % 100) and y =
(month), makes the most sense. Projects which expect to release

I dunno, that sounds just as dumb as any of the other schemes. If they're not going to release a version of software with the next integer number, they they should tag it with the build number. That way you know exactly what you're getting, and you should be able to go into the source repository and build an exact duplicate of your binary based onthe build number.

[#] Fri Aug 19 2011 17:54:24 EDT from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Great, so if the build team uses Git then you'll end up with "Version 3f4ceb14e86ca375a3ae31325447112d45dd2738" and won't that be fun! :)

Actually you said "tag" which seems to make more sense; any time a build is distributed to the outside world you just bump the build number and create a tag.

Back when we were running Subversion the commit numbers were sequential integers, and at one point I proposed using those as the version numbers. No one else on the team liked the idea.

[#] Fri Aug 19 2011 19:55:53 EDT from Spell Binder @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

We do that as well at my company. Every time an official build is going to be made, whether it be from a branch or the trunk, the code gets tagged with the build number first, so no matter what our version control system might say, we have a known point in time we can roll back to if needed.
Build Binder

[#] Fri Aug 19 2011 20:37:40 EDT from Ford II @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Back when we were running Subversion the commit numbers were
sequential integers, and at one point I proposed using those as the
version numbers. No one else on the team liked the idea.

That's a good idea, and as yet another show of how fucking stupid subversion is, they HAVE that state-of-the-universe revision number which would ideally be used to associate with a named tag, which would work perfectly, but do they do that? No......... a tag, is a copy of a section of the tree. What The Fuck Is Wrong With Those People.

Go to page: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... Last