XY installer

[ivan]

A couple of questions I have been itching to ask some time while trying to figure out the possible answers myself:

1. Why "Install Package" (I always get that one) for every beta is compressed in a ZIP file? The EXE becomes only 2% lighter so, unless there is an internal reason for using it, it seems extra hassle, for us too, is not worth it.

2. Why does "Install Package" display the message about licensing and registration if I already have a license? It is annoying to be reminded of something that is absolutely no use to you. Unless a specific trial version of a piece of software is downloaded, I believe it is unorthodox for any setup to be so "in your face" about registration. At the very least something like this will appear when you start a program (and wouldn't in case of you being already registered).

notice.png (33.12 KiB) Viewed 3512 times

May I ask if it would be possible for you to do a check prior to setup launching whether an existing license is present (at least in the default install location) and if yes then this "warning" would not be displayed?

Many thanks in advance

[RalphM]

Downloading exe's is in many company environments restricted, whereas zip packages seem to be more tolerated, which might be a reason to stick to the way it is right now.

I've installed XY approximately 800 times so far using the install package and haven't been annoyed so far by unzipping the package, nor the extra enter needed for the first message, maybe I'm a bit too tolerant?!
Anyway, if I ever would become tired of it, there are easy solutions available, either using the noinstall package or even better the Autoupdate script from the scripts section.

Just my 2 ct's

[ivan]

Downloading exe's is in many company environments restricted, whereas zip packages seem to be more tolerated, which might be a reason to stick to the way it is right now.

If you're in a company environment and downloading EXEs is restricted then it is usually for a reason and you (not you per se, just in general) shouldn't try to overcome that rule. Also, using XY within a corporate environment isn't allowed because that wouldn't be classified as personal use You'd need a volume/enterprise license for that

I've installed XY approximately 800 times so far using the install package and haven't been annoyed so far by unzipping the package, nor the extra enter needed for the first message, maybe I'm a bit too tolerant?!
Anyway, if I ever would become tired of it, there are easy solutions available, either using the noinstall package or even better the Autoupdate script from the scripts section.

Maybe you are a bit too tolerant but I won't judge. NoInstall is not good because it's actually more hassle than Install and AutoUpdate script isn't too silent during its operation.

It's a shame that XY doesn't have a built-in AutoUpdater with a silent mode, the frequency of beta releases sure warrants one. For a product that feels proud about how slim and fast it is, the extra step in installing beta/stable releases doesn't seem logical. If you archive lots of builds then I guess over time it might be of some use, but it's likely you'd create the archive yourself.

[j_c_hallgren]

Also, using XY within a corporate environment isn't allowed because that wouldn't be classified as personal use You'd need a volume/enterprise license for that

Don will be the final authority on this, but having been around while the verbiage was being reworked, I would say that you're wrong on this...from the XY site:

Code: Select all

As an individual person, you need a license to use XYplorer. This license grants you a non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use XYplorer on any number and kind of devices. As an employer, you need a license for each employee using XYplorer.

There is no standard "personal use" vs "business use" clause AFAIK...If you have a personal license, you can use it wherever you may be (home/work/etc)...now only if the system is used by more than one employee and XY can be used by them, and XY is provided by the employer vs the personal prop of the employee, then a multi-user license is needed.

[ivan]

There is no standard "personal use" vs "business use" clause AFAIK...If you have a personal license, you can use it wherever you may be (home/work/etc)...now only if the system is used by more than one employee and XY can be used by them, and XY is provided by the employer vs the personal prop of the employee, then a multi-user license is needed.

XY would be a rare exception in not differentiating between "personal" vs "business" uses. Pretty much every piece of software that I encountered (even some freeware) made those distinctions clear.
Whatever the case may be, the fact remains that if internally downloading EXEs is prohibited then XY shouldn't "encourage" breaking that rule if that's the real reason why installer comes zipped.

[serendipity]

Also, using XY within a corporate environment isn't allowed because that wouldn't be classified as personal use You'd need a volume/enterprise license for that

Don will be the final authority on this, but having been around while the verbiage was being reworked, I would say that you're wrong on this...from the XY site:

Code: Select all

As an individual person, you need a license to use XYplorer. This license grants you a non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use XYplorer on any number and kind of devices. As an employer, you need a license for each employee using XYplorer.

There is no standard "personal use" vs "business use" clause AFAIK...If you have a personal license, you can use it wherever you may be (home/work/etc)...now only if the system is used by more than one employee and XY can be used by them, and XY is provided by the employer vs the personal prop of the employee, then a multi-user license is needed.

To add to that, since XYplorer is a portable app many (including me) use it from USB too. Which means one is not confined to use it only at home, you can use it anywhere as long as its only you using it. If at any point if there is a second person involved then a second license is needed.
On a funny note, what about people with multiple personality disorders? Each personality buys one?

[ivan]

To add to that, since XYplorer is a portable app many (including me) use it from USB too. Which means one is not confined to use it only at home, you can use it anywhere as long as its only you using it. If at any point if there is a second person involved then a second license is needed.

While the portability aspect of XY is very nice, if a company, either passively or proactively, prohibits the use of unauthorised applications then I don't think "It was on a USB drive, I didn't install it on my work PC" will fly very well.

Anyway, I think that nitpicking through XY's license terms and work ethics of corporate environments is straying from answering those questions. Hopefully Don will be kind enough to shed some light.

[j_c_hallgren]

Anyway, I think that nitpicking through XY's license terms and work ethics of corporate environments is straying from answering those questions. Hopefully Don will be kind enough to shed some light.

I was simply pointing out that license terms do not appear to support your contention about personal/corporate requirements...I was not addressing the EXE vs ZIP issue.

[ivan]

I was simply pointing out that license terms do not appear to support your contention about personal/corporate requirements

I understand and, as you said, Don will be able to clarify this better, but this phrase in license definition throws me off:

Code: Select all

As an employer, you need a license for each employee using XYplorer. 

To me that sounds like "If you are an employer and one of your employees is using XYplorer (intentionally because they have a personal license or otherwise) while carrying out their work responsibilities then it is your duty to buy a license for that individual". The definition doesn't seem to take into account the possibility of that employee already having a personal license and how to proceed in that case.

[serendipity]

I was simply pointing out that license terms do not appear to support your contention about personal/corporate requirements

I understand and, as you said, Don will be able to clarify this better, but this phrase in license definition throws me off:

Code: Select all

As an employer, you need a license for each employee using XYplorer. 

To me that sounds like "If you are an employer and one of your employees is using XYplorer (intentionally because they have a personal license or otherwise) while carrying out their work responsibilities then it is your duty to buy a license for that individual". The definition doesn't seem to take into account the possibility of that employee already having a personal license and how to proceed in that case.

I am almost certain that one person doesnt need two licenses. I was searching for one particular post related to this and found it.

[admin]

One license per user

As an individual person, you need a license to use XYplorer. This license grants you a non-exclusive and non-transferable right to use XYplorer on any number and kind of devices. As an employer, you need a license for each employee using XYplorer.

In other words, either you have your own license, or your boss has one for you.

[PeterH]

If you're in a company environment and downloading EXEs is restricted then it is usually for a reason and you (not you per se, just in general) shouldn't try to overcome that rule.

Many people have display of filetype supressed. And after receiving a mail with madonna.jpg they click it and don't understand, why a .exe is run. To disable this uncontrolled behavior it's often disallowed (disabled) in a company to download .exe-files.
But if our DP-team want's to send me an exe for some reason, they pack it in a .zip! As .exe isn't possible. And when I needed to send an exe to someone else they advised me to do the same! And they and I and others think, that's ok! (As this tends to be something both sides think about and know what they are doing.)

So please stop to say what "should" be done by others, or should not, if you cannot imagine the reason. For example, if a company disallows something, and allows another thing. This can be bad, or this can be good - you just don't know.

And if Don does it for this reason, you can think it's good or bad - but it's his decision. You can tell you don't like it - but don't say what I or others should do. Neither private nor @work.
(Sorry to say it this way, but for several times I had the impression you want to decide what others should do. I don't know if it's just yourway of saying it, or if it's the way you think...)

[ivan]

Many people have display of filetype supressed. And after receiving a mail with madonna.jpg they click it and don't understand, why a .exe is run. To disable this uncontrolled behavior it's often disallowed (disabled) in a company to download .exe-files.
But if our DP-team want's to send me an exe for some reason, they pack it in a .zip! As .exe isn't possible. And when I needed to send an exe to someone else they advised me to do the same! And they and I and others think, that's ok! (As this tends to be something both sides think about and know what they are doing.)

You're applying the wrong principle here. What you do in a workplace is your own business. However, when it comes to downloading software from the internet it is quite rare for it to be packaged in a Zip file and, if present, is usually offered an alternative to downloading straight forward EXE.

So please stop to say what "should" be done by others, or should not, if you cannot imagine the reason. For example, if a company disallows something, and allows another thing. This can be bad, or this can be good - you just don't know.

Regardless of whether it is good or bad, if something is disallowed then something is disallowed.Circumventing something internally is different to doing so externally.

And if Don does it for this reason, you can think it's good or bad - but it's his decision. You can tell you don't like it - but don't say what I or others should do. Neither private nor @work.
(Sorry to say it this way, but for several times I had the impression you want to decide what others should do. I don't know if it's just yourway of saying it, or if it's the way you think...)

You said "...if Don does this for a reason...", which to me sounds like uncertainty whether he does or doesn't. I would just like to know that reason, if it exists. From a personal point of view, I don't see why it should be mandatory for us to jump through extra hoops (whether it's one or ten) to install XY.

[admin]

ivan, I've warned you before. Please confine your contributions to the sort of stuff everybody else here is contributing. One more irrelevant post and you're banned.

[ivan]

ivan, I've warned you before. Please confine your contributions to the sort of stuff everybody else here is contributing. One more irrelevant post and you're banned.

Excuse me, but this thread is me asking questions about why XY works the way it works. I don't see that as irrelevant at all.