Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!ecngs!feeder2.ecngs.de!81.171.118.61.MISMATCH!peer01.fr7!news.highwinds-media.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: "Osmium" Newsgroups: comp.programming Subject: Re: To all who write uninstallation programs for software you distribute Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 11:22:54 -0500 Lines: 44 Message-ID: References: <0hq7pblr580ec5n1sv05fapprarqc9ef9l@4ax.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: individual.net JumKCmsjn94XeRtUbV3CMwxZgQOh8mRFylI5NBpFig6NGAPwTk Cancel-Lock: sha1:qv/M9Syz9+n8RMdm8HtpMeXRqT4= X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Received-Bytes: 3228 X-Received-Body-CRC: 378165000 Xref: csiph.com comp.programming:6811 "Mark Storkamp" wrote: > In article , > "Osmium" wrote: > >> "Osmium" wrote: >> >> > I probably dislike Windows as much as Richard does. If we could revert >> > to >> > the pre-install era I would be willing to pay the price by doing a >> > manual >> > file association. But I am not at all sure that is the only change in >> > practices that would be needed, it was just the most obvious one that >> > occurred to me. Perhaps someone that has actually written official >> > install/uninstall code could give more insight. >> >> I thought of another glitch when one bypasses the Windows install >> routine. >> >> A program should be visible via. the Start|all programs ... little dance. >> A >> program activated in Richard's way will not list the new program. >> Perhaps >> one could devise a patch. But you have started on the journey to make a >> user into a programmer - this is not a good trip. > > Here's a thought. The OS knows when something is written into the file > system. If that thing being written is an executable program, the OS > could keep track of that location and make it visible via. the Start|all > programs thing you're referring to. To make things even simpler, the > entire bundle of files required by the application could look like a > single file to the OS, and could be copied, moved or deleted by the user > at any time by referring to a single entity in the file system. Somehow, I don't think Microsoft will buy it. After all, they have already provided an install/uninstall mechanism that usually, or at least oftentimes, works. This thread was about a case where the uninstall thingy told the invoker that it had failed to some degree. The implication was that the invoker had bottled up information he had instead of sharing it with the ultimate user. Then the thread deteriorated into lectures about good programming practices and business ethics and morals.