5 ms·

As a former SCCM admin, I can tell you that packaging things like this will be a nightmare. Microsoft really needs to revamp the way software is installed on Wi

As a former SCCM admin, I can tell you that packaging things like this will be a nightmare. Microsoft really needs to revamp the way software is installed on Windows, and make it all work the same way. Putting a wrapper around an MSI or EXE can be a nightmare. I mean, /SILENT is not good enough for many apps to make installers silent, so the switch /VERYSILENT came out. And even then, it's still not standardized, and many programs will still pop up dialogs and kill your automation. And then you'll find that the same package won't run the same depending on what version of Windows, what edition, 32 or 64 bit, etc and the installer will fail. Then when the MSIs aren't built correctly, they will leave you with a detection method that gets hosed when the software auto-updates. So you run your package manager, and it'll detect that your software is no longer installed, because the MSI product code changed for the newer version. I mean we have so many ways to do software on Windows. Let's count them: * MSI * EXE * MSU * AppX * Windows Features * dism * Windows Update * SCCM Deployments Even just open up the "Uninstall Apps" control panel, or the old "Add / Remove Programs" and look how long it takes to load the list. It's pulling from like 20 different places in the registry and various places in the WMI database just to build that list. So when you want to use that as a detection method, good luck...

GordonS 6y ago
I haven't had the misfortune to have to repackage other apps for SCCM, but I have had the misfortune to create MSI installers for several apps. It's horrible. MSI is so complex, and there are constraints, limitations and oddities at every twist and turn. I love Windows for desktops, but my all time favourite item on my wishlist is for Microsoft to completely revamp how software is installed, from scratch, to improve things. I really mean from scratch - I know Microsoft like every new thing they do to be compatible all the way back to Windows 3.1, but no, really, from scratch!
- cm2187 6y ago
  Well that's what the windows store was meant to do but then they added a pay toll, limited it to apps that could run on a fraction of the machines deployed, so it never took off. But agree, there should be no need to things like docker if apps were sufficiently compartimented and explicit about their requirements.
- cpascal 6y ago
  I recently went down this path. I discovered the WiX MSI toolkit and it was very smooth. If you ever find yourself needing to create an installer and haven’t used it, give it a look. It can install dependencies, customize the UI, create/start/stop/remove Windows services, configure IIS websites, and run custom actions. It’s all done via declarative XML and made my life much easier.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    WiX is great tool but a bit steep learning curve because it won't abstract MSI spec so I need to learn MSI spec.
    - GordonS 6y ago
      It is powerful, but the curve is really steep, and it is still subject to the seemingly random, myriad of constraints and limitations - for example, there is a whole class of variables that you can only write to at certain stages in the install process. The last MSI installer I wrote had to install 2 Windows services, write to the registry, grant file system access rights, and install a minifilter driver. There was a lot of swearing, and I was really close to launching my laptop out of a Window several times. It was a very unhappy period of my life, and if I never have to write another MSI installer, it will be too soon.
naikrovek 6y ago
> Microsoft really needs to revamp the way software is installed on Windows, and make it all work the same way. They did, it's called MSIX and there are apparently few HN commenters aware of it, especially among those that complain about installing things on Windows. I'm not referring to the comment I replied to.
- aboringusername 6y ago
  Great. So now we have: * MSI * EXE * MSU * AppX * Windows Features * dism * Windows Update * SCCM Deployments * MSIX. So now everyone uses MSIX? Or are there still a combination of all of the above being used today? Creating a new standard is one thing, enforcing it is another. It's like XKCD 927, just yet another option to add to the list. [1]: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
  - naikrovek 6y ago
    Oh God, choice! Options! They're so awful! Why don't Microsoft force one standard on everyone, so we can complain about a lack of options instead of complaining about having too many options? Why are multiple options a bad thing? Seriously.
    - naikrovek 6y ago
      Some people just like citing XKCD and downvoting anyone that calls them on it.
    - recursive 6y ago
      If there were fewer things, I probably would have had a better chance of having heard of msix.
  - aksss 6y ago
    You forgot about Microsoft InTune.. basically cloud-based SCCM. It has its own packager as well. Basically wraps up MSIs. https://github.com/Microsoft/Microsoft-Win32-Content-Prep-Tool https://github.com/Microsoft/Microsoft-Win32-Content-Prep-To...

GordonS 6y ago

I haven't had the misfortune to have to repackage other apps for SCCM, but I have had the misfortune to create MSI installers for several apps. It's horrible. MSI is so complex, and there are constraints, limitations and oddities at every twist and turn. I love Windows for desktops, but my all time favourite item on my wishlist is for Microsoft to completely revamp how software is installed, from scratch, to improve things. I really mean from scratch - I know Microsoft like every new thing they do to be compatible all the way back to Windows 3.1, but no, really, from scratch!

cm2187 6y ago
Well that's what the windows store was meant to do but then they added a pay toll, limited it to apps that could run on a fraction of the machines deployed, so it never took off. But agree, there should be no need to things like docker if apps were sufficiently compartimented and explicit about their requirements.
cpascal 6y ago
I recently went down this path. I discovered the WiX MSI toolkit and it was very smooth. If you ever find yourself needing to create an installer and haven’t used it, give it a look. It can install dependencies, customize the UI, create/start/stop/remove Windows services, configure IIS websites, and run custom actions. It’s all done via declarative XML and made my life much easier.
- fomine3 6y ago
  WiX is great tool but a bit steep learning curve because it won't abstract MSI spec so I need to learn MSI spec.
  - GordonS 6y ago
    It is powerful, but the curve is really steep, and it is still subject to the seemingly random, myriad of constraints and limitations - for example, there is a whole class of variables that you can only write to at certain stages in the install process. The last MSI installer I wrote had to install 2 Windows services, write to the registry, grant file system access rights, and install a minifilter driver. There was a lot of swearing, and I was really close to launching my laptop out of a Window several times. It was a very unhappy period of my life, and if I never have to write another MSI installer, it will be too soon.

naikrovek 6y ago

> Microsoft really needs to revamp the way software is installed on Windows, and make it all work the same way. They did, it's called MSIX and there are apparently few HN commenters aware of it, especially among those that complain about installing things on Windows. I'm not referring to the comment I replied to.

aboringusername 6y ago
Great. So now we have: * MSI * EXE * MSU * AppX * Windows Features * dism * Windows Update * SCCM Deployments * MSIX. So now everyone uses MSIX? Or are there still a combination of all of the above being used today? Creating a new standard is one thing, enforcing it is another. It's like XKCD 927, just yet another option to add to the list. [1]: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
- naikrovek 6y ago
  Oh God, choice! Options! They're so awful! Why don't Microsoft force one standard on everyone, so we can complain about a lack of options instead of complaining about having too many options? Why are multiple options a bad thing? Seriously.
  - naikrovek 6y ago
    Some people just like citing XKCD and downvoting anyone that calls them on it.
  - recursive 6y ago
    If there were fewer things, I probably would have had a better chance of having heard of msix.
- aksss 6y ago
  You forgot about Microsoft InTune.. basically cloud-based SCCM. It has its own packager as well. Basically wraps up MSIs. https://github.com/Microsoft/Microsoft-Win32-Content-Prep-Tool https://github.com/Microsoft/Microsoft-Win32-Content-Prep-To...