Sanford Aranoff wrote:

> Very simple. The agency would issue a certificate of compliance. When people
>
> > buy software, they may think more carefully about buying certified software.
> >
> > Standards must be updated periodically. Old standards are useless, as you
> > mention.
>

Thinking more about this, I can write a program that would compare the registry
before and after the install, and give a list of all files deleted or added by the
install. This would take out the mystery of the installation process.

Happy New Year!

The standard is there. So for any updates or mods as well.

Don't see any mass amount of people refusing to install software known to
have problems with deinstallation. Example, Symantec software products like
pre 2004 NAV by design. Post 2003 NAV due to various problems. My intent
is an example, not isolating NAV as the one and only deinstall problem in
windows XP.

Even the seemingly good ones do leave behind a directory(s) and/or some
orphaned registry entries.

There doesn't seem to be much effort in deinstallation verification by the
software writers, and all its little things that get left behind sometimes.
They don't get the picture, deinstall and leave the OS as it was before the
installation of said software. Try an MS Office 2000 or 2003 deinstall
sometime along with all of each of the SPs, and updates accompanied as
another example.
--
Jonny
"Sanford Aranoff" <aranoff@analysis-knowledge.com> wrote in message
news:43B6BFAB.71124B1B@analysis-knowledge.com...
> We must vigorously enforce standards for software installations. After
> suffering a reinstall of the OS, I see the very important need for a
> national or international agency to mandate these standards.
>
> If the installation requires a previous installation be uninstalled,
> then this should be done automatically. Much too often a user installs
> the app without uninstalling the previous app, causing all types of
> problems to arise.
>
> The application must create an Install directory as a subdirectory of
> the application. This will contain a log file and registry entries.
> . If any registry settings are modified, the install would export the
> settings to the Install directory before and after making the mods.
> . If any registry settings are added, the install would export these
> settings.
> . All files added to the system would be listed, along with attributes
> (like hidden)
> . A separate list of files, which spyware programs may flag, would be
> given.
>
> The user should have the ability to deactivate (by renaming) the
> possible spyware files to see how the application would run without
> these files.
>
> All software must conform to these standards, including operating
> systems.
>
> A reinstall should be easy, by importing to the registry and copying the
> files. Users should be able to copy the files and Install directory to a
> backup disk for the purpose of reinstalling in case of a system crash.
>
> An explicit list would prevent bad stuff from getting into computers.
> The standards agency would certify the software.
>
>
>

Sanford Aranoff wrote:
> We must vigorously enforce standards for software installations.


Who is "we," and why are you making such a claim?


> After
> suffering a reinstall of the OS, I see the very important need for a
> national or international agency to mandate these standards.
>


Don't be absurd. Why would we need, or even want, government and/or
bureaucratic meddling in a purely technical matter?


> If the installation requires a previous installation be uninstalled,
> then this should be done automatically. Much too often a user installs
> the app without uninstalling the previous app, causing all types of
> problems to arise.
>


If the user doesn't care to follow the instructions provided, then any
ensuing consequences are his responsibility. There's no need for
corporate or government hand-holding.


> The application must create an Install directory as a subdirectory of
> the application. This will contain a log file and registry entries.
> • If any registry settings are modified, the install would export the
> settings to the Install directory before and after making the mods.
> • If any registry settings are added, the install would export these
> settings.
> • All files added to the system would be listed, along with attributes
> (like hidden)
> • A separate list of files, which spyware programs may flag, would be
> given.
>

It's clear that you have absolutely no understanding of the dynamic
nature of the registry. Following your patently absurd scheme, removing
any application so designed could easily cripple dozens of other,
subsequently installed applications.


> The user should have the ability to deactivate (by renaming) the
> possible spyware files to see how the application would run without
> these files.
>


Dream on. Spyware, by it's very nature, is the work of people with no
ethics; what makes you think that these people, who already flout
international laws and common decency, would adhere to your proposed
"software installation standards?"


> All software must conform to these standards, including operating
> systems.
>


Again, says who? If you don't like the way a product works, simply
take your money elsewhere; buy a better, competing product. Market
forces will do the rest, once enough people follow suit.


> A reinstall should be easy, by importing to the registry and copying the
> files.


Thereby recreating the precise configuration that caused the problems
that lead to the reinstallation in the first place? To what point, to
keep them going in circles?


> Users should be able to copy the files and Install directory to a
> backup disk for the purpose of reinstalling in case of a system crash.
>


Why? Users already have the original installation media from which to
reinstall. Why waste storage space?


> An explicit list would prevent bad stuff from getting into computers.


How could the mere existence of a list prevent anything? Are you
saying that your users (who, by your own claim, can't read and follow
simple installation instructions) are going to take the time to compare
lists of tens of thousands of files with the contents of their hard drives?


> The standards agency would certify the software.
>

And who would certify the technical competence of the standards agency
and ensure that it's members aren't favoring one software manufacturer
over another? What are you, a former government bureaucrat looking for
another job, one that involves no honest work?


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

That's done before.. InCtrl was one if I remember correctly..


--
Tumppi
=================================
Most learned on these newsgroups
Helsinki, FINLAND
(translations from/to FI not always accurate
=================================




"Sanford Aranoff" <aranoff@analysis-knowledge.com> kirjoitti
viestissä:43B704E9.DDDB2B74@analysis-knowledge.com...
>
>
> Sanford Aranoff wrote:
>
>> Very simple. The agency would issue a certificate of compliance. When
>> people
>>
>> > buy software, they may think more carefully about buying certified
>> > software.
>> >
>> > Standards must be updated periodically. Old standards are useless, as
>> > you
>> > mention.
>>
>
> Thinking more about this, I can write a program that would compare the
> registry
> before and after the install, and give a list of all files deleted or
> added by the
> install. This would take out the mystery of the installation process.
>
> Happy New Year!
>
>
>