3 ms·

I understand what you're saying, but it simply is not an excuse. The whole point of this tool is to make installing and updating packages easier, but at the sa

I understand what you're saying, but it simply is not an excuse. The whole point of this tool is to make installing and updating packages easier, but at the same time they have one of the most complicated installation instructions for a standalone software package ever. That is something that makes me wonder how much they really care about simplifying the workflow of installing and updating packages.

sillysaurus3 13y ago
Hm. There's a Stack Overflow link elsewhere in the thread... In it, someone reported they were able to set up Omaha and have it continue to work for over a year without needing to touch it once. That's pretty solid. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3711435/what-is-the-experience-with-google-omaha-their-auto-update-engine-for-chrome http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3711435/what-is-the-exper... Are you sure a day or two of work in exchange for over a year of solid deployment isn't a good exchange? If it isn't, then which alternative would you recommend in order to get similar efficiency?
- kijin 13y ago
  Not sure who downvoted your GGP comment, you did have a valid point. Nonetheless, I think there's hardly ever a justification for asking other people to perform "a day or two" of work to set up something, even in exchange for years of solid deployment. A day or two, multiplied by thousands of Windows developers, adds up to several man-years of entirely avoidable work. Entirely avoidable, because it's Google's job, not ours, to package up this Omaha thingy into a neat binary with a neat API that any project can easily use. It's not too difficult to ship a single binary (or collection of binaries) that will work out of the box on every Windows Vista/7/8 PC, with the only dependencies being the Win32 API, vcredist, and perhaps a recent version of .NET Framework. Wrap it all up in an .msi and you're good to go. No need to tell a C# developer, for example, to meddle with Visual C++ or Python. If the Omaha devs can spend a few weeks to make the setup process as simple as that, now that would have a real chance of adoption.
jenscow 13y ago
It's easier than rolling your own, which is what most Windows developers do. It's strange that Windows still doesn't provide this for desktop applications. Also, VS pro is something that a Windows developer could already have. I do not agree to pirating it, though - but MS do provide it for free/cheap if you jump through a few hoops.

sillysaurus3 13y ago

Hm. There's a Stack Overflow link elsewhere in the thread... In it, someone reported they were able to set up Omaha and have it continue to work for over a year without needing to touch it once. That's pretty solid. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3711435/what-is-the-experience-with-google-omaha-their-auto-update-engine-for-chrome http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3711435/what-is-the-exper... Are you sure a day or two of work in exchange for over a year of solid deployment isn't a good exchange? If it isn't, then which alternative would you recommend in order to get similar efficiency?

kijin 13y ago
Not sure who downvoted your GGP comment, you did have a valid point. Nonetheless, I think there's hardly ever a justification for asking other people to perform "a day or two" of work to set up something, even in exchange for years of solid deployment. A day or two, multiplied by thousands of Windows developers, adds up to several man-years of entirely avoidable work. Entirely avoidable, because it's Google's job, not ours, to package up this Omaha thingy into a neat binary with a neat API that any project can easily use. It's not too difficult to ship a single binary (or collection of binaries) that will work out of the box on every Windows Vista/7/8 PC, with the only dependencies being the Win32 API, vcredist, and perhaps a recent version of .NET Framework. Wrap it all up in an .msi and you're good to go. No need to tell a C# developer, for example, to meddle with Visual C++ or Python. If the Omaha devs can spend a few weeks to make the setup process as simple as that, now that would have a real chance of adoption.

jenscow 13y ago

It's easier than rolling your own, which is what most Windows developers do. It's strange that Windows still doesn't provide this for desktop applications. Also, VS pro is something that a Windows developer could already have. I do not agree to pirating it, though - but MS do provide it for free/cheap if you jump through a few hoops.