2 ms·
> Still, I think .pkg package style installers are the most intuitive process for non-techies, especially those coming from windows where MSI and install wizard
by philistine 2mo ago
> Still, I think .pkg package style installers are the most intuitive process for non-techies, especially those coming from windows where MSI and install wizard style exes are common.
Nope. It's an app that is simply the .app bundle, skipping the whole historical footnote of a .dmg completely. Once you first run it, it asks if you want to move it to Applications, and promptly restarts from its new location.
- zbentley 2mo agoGood point. Why don’t more people do that? Compression?
- simongr3dal 2mo agoSome apps used the disk image as a simple way to bundle up a little “installer”. This is lost by sending a .zip file. The disk image could put a background image with instruction visual, decide the visual placement of icons. Applications could include folders with brush packs, example documents, user manuals and such. The fact that it was a disk image could be seen as confusing if you read that closely, but if you ignore the file type it was simply an icon that you could double click to open a piece of installer UI.
- speedstyle 2mo agoA .app isn't a file, it's a folder. There's no good way to download a folder, you have to use zip, tar, dmg. I do like single binaries though, you certainly don't need a whole installer stage like Windows apps. Open package managers are even better