Re: FYI - installer packages are the preferred deployment method now

FROM : Wade Tregaskis
DATE : Mon Nov 05 02:22:46 2007

> Play with the new package maker to understand its capabilities 
> before you go off hating installers :)


This is completely irrelevant.  As an end-user I presume 
Installer.app works just fine, in any case.  What matters is that if 
I download some random app, and it demands it be installed before I 
can run it, my thought process is something like:

1) Is this app Adobe CS3, a system utility likely to have kexts or 
similar, or the ultimate killer app that I just promised my first 
born for?
   If yes, either install or - if it's an unfamiliar app, fire up 
Pacifist to see wtf it's going to muck with, first.
   If no, delete.

There are legitimate scenarios where you do need a formal 
installation process.  But the fact that such a mechanism exists, 
officially, is being abused by some people whom are perhaps too busy, 
lazy, naive or uncaring to write their apps better.

Wade

P.S. There are arguments to be made in favour on an installer, if 
that installer is large but downloads dependencies iff necessary, or 
similar smarts that ultimately save me time.  In my experience this 
is very much a niche area for the average end-user.
P.P.S.  CS3 is an arbitrary exemplar exception to cover those suites 
that have shared frameworks and whatnot.  Yet, Microsoft Office is a 
counter-example; it supports drag-and-drop installation.  Installing 
Office is much faster and easier than CS3.
P.P.P.S.  I'm not experienced with it, but I gather packages are 
convenient for remotely managed machines, with ARD and whatnot. 
Logically it follows, then, that there is a nice convenient package 
maker for system admins.