Regarding the Uploading of Installers

[simmaster07]

To anyone who will listen,

I recently found a topic on Simtropolis about the over-the-top implementation of installers. Let me start by saying that I have never agreed more with estonianman, and I thought of making a topic here since installers dominate the LEX.

There were various points made against the use of installers:

• It wastes everyone's time. Not only does the downloader have to waste time accepting a common-sense EULA and post-Vista users having to grant security privileges, but the uploader has to waste their time making the installer when it could simply be zipped up.
  
  
• Incompatibility for Mac. Also going back to wasting time, the uploader has to make a Mac-compatible ZIP (which you could just use for Windows as well), or force them to use FileJuicer. FileJuicer is not free, and those who can't pay for it (for example me, only being 13) get left in the dark once the trial expires.
  
  
• Potential for inflation. To store the EULA, interface, and the files could possibly (but not always) cause the filesize to inflate, going against one of the points of using an installer.
  
  
• Antivirus software/post-Vista. Users using McAfee may have to deal with their antivirus asking if the user wants to execute this file, may refuse to run the file, or may not download it in the first place if it has a web filter.
  
  
• The uploader is liable for any mistakes in installation the installer.
  
  
• User loses ability to organize their plugins folder efficiently. The installer is, instead, going to unzip where it feels like. In some cases, the user could specify a directory, but that's just a lot more time wasted.
  
  
• The readmes that pop up in your web browser without your permission. Seriously? I know what I downloaded, I know what the dependencies are. It would make life easier if these were just listed in the description.
  

The list goes on. Of course, the NAM, RHW, NWM, CAM, etc. are all excluded from the rant because there are a multitude of options the user has to specify. While the point of the installers may be to make life easier for users, it does nothing but complicate installation. What happens when a new player finds out where the plugins folder is? More frustration. It would be, again, easier to leave a note saying "Unzip to My Documents\SimCity 4\Plugins" or wherever needed.

So the question is, why do uploaders continue to use these installers when their over-the-top usage just makes things harder? If WinRAR or WinZip... even Windows without a ZIP handler can mass extract these files to our plugins folder, how would it ever be easier to make the user unzip each individual file to run an installer one-by-one?

[WC_EEND]

While I totally agree with you on a few points, I'd like to make a few remarks:

- UAC can be turned off (although in Vista that means you'll get an annoying red cross in your taskbar)

- You can also just run the installer from within the zip file (I always do that, since it saves time because unzipping every installer would take the rest of my life)

[simmaster07]

While I totally agree with you on a few points, I'd like to make a few remarks:

- UAC can be turned off (although in Vista that means you'll get an annoying red cross in your taskbar)

Valid point, but some users won't attempt it thinking it'll compromise their security.

- You can also just run the installer from within the zip file (I always do that, since it saves time because unzipping every installer would take the rest of my life)

Still a waste of time when mass extraction can be done.

[io_bg]

Well, I don't really mind installers. They are actually a better option when you have to choose some details for your plugins (the NAM installer is a good example). Having readmes like "copy folder X if you want to have Euro textures or copy folder Y if you want standard US ones" is more confusing for the average player.

[Yermam]

• User loses ability to organize their plugins folder efficiently. The installer is, instead, going to unzip where it feels like. In some cases, the user could specify a directory, but that's just a lot more time wasted.
  
  

On this point here, I've had several installers that once I change the installation directory, it still installs it to where it wants to, not where I just told it too.  I'm pretty sure this mostly happens with a few specific uploaders.

[simmaster07]

Well, I don't really mind installers. They are actually a better option when you have to choose some details for your plugins (the NAM installer is a good example). Having readmes like "copy folder X if you want to have Euro textures or copy folder Y if you want standard US ones" is more confusing for the average player.

As I said, the NAM, RHW, CAM, and similar installers that require the user to choose what components to install are exempt from the rant. Though there are many installers on the LEX that are over-the-top, like texture packs that can simply be unzipped.

[Terring7]

I agree. Some add-ons, like N.A.M. and C.A.M., need the installer because they contain plenty of options that the user has to specify in the beginning. Just unzip them and remove anything you don't want is confusing and time consuming. Other add-ons, like SimMars, are just too big to just unzip them. But installers everywhere? Even for a small house, a little shop or a tiny collection of props? Isn't that a bit too much?

[Girafe]

I don't tink that installers are obligatory in the LEX, it's just usual.

EDIT: I checked LEX candidacy guide and didn't find something about installers 

[simmaster07]

I don't tink that installers are obligatory in the LEX, it's just usual.

EDIT: I checked LEX candidacy guide and didn't find something about installers 

Missing the point: this topic is about the uploading of unnecessary installers regardless, not how "installers are obligatory in the LEX"

[Girafe]

For me it's quite the same,

you have pro and cons, and if it's not necessary and not obligatory it's up to you to use it or not 
Maybe for some people it's just a preference (maybe more professional than a zip) even if like said before there is lot of situations where we don't need installers.   

[zero7]

Installers aren't required for the Lex - I never use them and wouldn't be releasing on the Lex if they were mandatory.

Pet hate - I'lll say no more.  It's been debated over and over ever since they first appeared.

[simmaster07]

For me it's quite the same,

you have pro and cons, and if it's not necessary and not obligatory it's up to you to use it or not 
Maybe for some people it's just a preference (maybe more professional than a zip) even if like said before there is lot of situations where we don't need installers.   

And while we have the freedom of choice, it gets annoying when the high-quality uploads here have installers that disregard where we want them installed and have popup readmes we don't want. Not only does it waste our time, but it also discourages downloads when the point is to share your work.

[adroman]

Girafe is quite right.

Personally, I prefer the look of the installer, it says that the uploader has made the effort to present his or her work nicely.

As far as keeping plugins organised goes- what better way than with an installer? They create folders based on the upload (usually- I can't say I've seen many/any installers that install straight to the "Plugins" base folder). The installer also contains important information that may have been glossed over in the details, and the read me needs to be a pop-up, otherwise there is no real way of 'forcing' people to read it.

Freedom of Choice applies here, too. It is the uploader's choice to use an installer, there are ways of making things Mac-patible (No offence, but Macs account for how much of the total amount of Machines that people use SC4 on?) As far as I'm concerned, when you choose a minority Operating System, you have to accept the limitations, and to pay for ways to get around them.

I don't mean to start a flame war, especially not a PC Vs. Mac one.

What I'm trying to say is that the decisions about Installers are made by the individuals (maybe some teams enforce it, but that's up to the team then). I prefer the installer system to enhance the compression ratio and the aesthetically pleasing way they present the custom content.

Just my two cents,
Adrian.

[simmaster07]

And I understand and respect what you're saying. But I don't see the professionalism in an unnecessary EULA and an installer that only complicates the installation process for everyone. There are several problems with your statement.

Firstly, some installers will not keep the plugins folder organized the way you may want it. In fact, quite the contrary; those installers will only extract where they want to extract, not where you want. Almost everyone has no problem with ZIPs because you can mass extract them if you at least know where the Plugins folder is. If they don't, just point them to it. Also, forcing a popup readme only, would you look at that, wastes more time. Forcing people to read it won't necessarily work, because some people still complain about their brown boxes regardless. We also have to waste more time to close our browser. I mean, if you're going to have a popup readme, use a text file and open it in Notepad. If they don't want to read, I'm not obligated to provide support for them.

Secondly, the number of downloads for the Mac version of the NAM is, on the STEX, presently over 41,000. While that may not represent the number of unique downloaders, you can tell that there are at least 25,000 Mac users that use SC4, so now you have an idea of about how many Mac users there are, if not more. People have different reasons for using Macs. If Windows and Linux users don't have to pay anything to get SC4 plugins, why should Mac users have to pay for it? Because they're a minority? That's ridiculous.

Also, I, not being a member of any team and not being a very active uploader, do not care about how the installer looks. If I can get my plugins extracted as quickly as possible, I could not care less. In addition, compressing a ZIP with WinRAR on High would probably produce a smaller outcome, though I've yet to test it.

[joelyboy911]

I agree with my team-mate Adrian.

Installers make things look professional and tidy, and if done properly, they will organise things by creator or team, which for me is a sensible way to organise the plugins. They might become an inconvenience to users who operate on an Apple/Mac system, but the majority of SC4 users are still on Windows.

They certainly do add an air of professionalism to a production, which is, I suspect, a major part of the reason that the BSC releases all their BATs/Lots/Mods in this format. It is one of the major reasons I choose to release them this way as well. The installer presents the basic information, can have a license agreement, makes it easy to access the readme, and makes provision for packages that have optional/alternative components.

I do disagree with the readme popping up automatically, (that can be a real nuisance) which is why on my installers I add a convenient button to open the readme, if the user wants/needs to read it.

If you organise your plugins by type, zoning, or other criteria, maybe Installers aren't for you... but you are possibly a perfectionist, and spend time putting things in specific locations, so is it really a major hassle?

I don't understand "The uploader is liable for any and all mistakes in installation." Could you please elaborate on that point?

If there are 41,000 Mac NAM downloads, perhaps you could share the matching statistic for the regular/Windows version? That would be a good way of presenting the facts. Proportions are more meaningful than raw numbers. 

[simmaster07]

I agree with my team-mate Adrian.

Installers make things look professional and tidy, and if done properly, they will organise things by creator or team, which for me is a sensible way to organise the plugins. They might become an inconvenience to users who operate on an Apple/Mac system, but the majority of SC4 users are still on Windows.

They certainly do add an air of professionalism to a production, which is, I suspect, a major part of the reason that the BSC releases all their BATs/Lots/Mods in this format. It is one of the major reasons I choose to release them this way as well. The installer presents the basic information, can have a license agreement, makes it easy to access the readme, and makes provision for packages that have optional/alternative components.

Again, I still don't see the professionalism if even a former ST mod agrees that installers are a pain.

I do disagree with the readme popping up automatically, (that can be a real nuisance) which is why on my installers I add a convenient button to open the readme, if the user wants/needs to read it.

If you organise your plugins by type, zoning, or other criteria, maybe Installers aren't for you... but you are possibly a perfectionist, and spend time putting things in specific locations, so is it really a major hassle?

I don't understand "The uploader is liable for any and all mistakes in installation." Could you please elaborate on that point?

If the installer is prepared improperly, then the uploader is fully responsible. If the readme is incorrect, the uploader is responsible. If the uploader makes a typo and unzips to "Plugns" instead of "Plugins," the uploader is still responsible. Though that title is inaccurate and should be changed.

If there are 41,000 Mac NAM downloads, perhaps you could share the matching statistic for the regular/Windows version? That would be a good way of presenting the facts. Proportions are more meaningful than raw numbers. 

665,000 Windows downloads. 17.2% of NAM downloads come from Mac users.

And anyways, what's the point of an EULA if the work is protected by international copyright laws? "Copyright (c) 2010 Author. All rights reserved." in the readme is sufficient, but to have an EULA adds a false sense of professionalism and power to something that's regarded as worthless to everyone outside of the SC4 community.

[Andreas]

It wastes everyone's time. Not only does the downloader have to waste time accepting a common-sense EULA and post-Vista users having to grant security privileges, but the uploader has to waste their time making the installer when it could simply be zipped up.

If you feel that clicking through an installer, which will take about ten seconds at most, is a waste of time, the creators of custom content might considering that preparing and uploading their work could be a waste of time, too, and simply don't do it anymore.

Incompatibility for Mac. Also going back to wasting time, the uploader has to make a Mac-compatible ZIP (which you could just use for Windows as well), or force them to use FileJuicer. FileJuicer is not free, and those who can't pay for it (for example me, only being 13) get left in the dark once the trial expires.

While FileJuicer is not free, buying a license for just 12,95 EUR doesn't look like a fortune for me. Using a Mac has always been a bit more expensive than buying a PC, so I'd assume this small amount of money is well-spent, considering you only have to do it once. If you can't buy it yourself, ask your parents, or a friend.

Potential for inflation. To store the EULA, interface, and the files could possibly (but not always) cause the filesize to inflate, going against one of the points of using an installer.

The installer is compressing the files in a similar manner than with a ZIP file. I've just looked at one of my files, and the size of the EXE is exactly the same as the ZIPped files. The EULA is just a few lines of text, an the "footprint" of the installer program is a few KB at most. The compression algorithm might be better than ZIP as well. Just have a look at the NAM download - the NSIS installer compresses about 30% better than ZIP.

Antivirus software/post-Vista. Users using McAfee may have to deal with their antivirus asking if the user wants to execute this file, may refuse to run the file, or may not download it in the first place if it has a web filter.

The installers don't contain any viruses. Just because it's an EXE file, it's not more prone to viruses than a ZIP file. It's not our fault that some antivirus programs treat EXE files as potential viruses, though.

The uploader is liable for any and all mistakes in installation.

What do you mean with that? All downloads are provided "as is", this means they are working fine on our system, but nobody can guarantee that they will do the same on your computer. The risk of installing a download in an improper way is far higher when offering a ZIP file than using an installer, which will suggest a default installation path, and make sure that potential loading order issues are avoided.

User loses ability to organize their plugins folder efficiently. The installer is, instead, going to unzip where it feels like. In some cases, the user could specify a directory, but that's just a lot more time wasted.

In pretty much all cases, the default installation path can be changed. It might take a bit more time to do that in the installer interface, but if you don't want that, simply use the default path and rearrange your files later. With a ZIP file, you also need to create or select a folder of your choice, so there isn't really that much time that is wasted.

The readmes that pop up in your web browser without your permission. Seriously? I know what I downloaded, I know what the dependencies are. It would make life easier if these were just listed in the description.

The readme is there for a reason - you're supposed to read it. It takes a good amount of time to compile those, and they contain essential information about the download, such as dependency links, potential compatibility problems etc. Modern browsers make use of tabs, so even if you install a large amount of downloads at the same time, you don't get multiple windows. Hint: If you make your browser window smaller, and don't overlap it with your explorer window, you don't have to switch back and forth all the time.


If you really think that downloading our work is wasting too much of your precious time, then please skip our downloads entirely. We spent dozens, if not hundreds of hours for our creation, and we spend additional hours to prepare and upload our work - and everything for free. Some of the issues described above can be avoided if you donate some money and get the LEX (or STEX) CDs/DVDs, which usually have an interface to install several files at once, or other helpful tools. I can only speak for the SFBT downloads, but so far, I never heard of any problems regarding the installation process - every single installer is using the very same principle, the same base path, and the same readme format. It's easy to memorize, skips some of the steps mentioned above (such as the EULA thingy), so everyone should be able to handle it without any problems.

[simmaster07]

If you feel that clicking through an installer, which will take about ten seconds at most, is a waste of time, the creators of custom content might considering that preparing and uploading their work could be a waste of time, too, and simply don't do it anymore.

While FileJuicer is not free, buying a license for just 12,95 EUR doesn't look like a fortune for me. Using a Mac has always been a bit more expensive than buying a PC, so I'd assume this small amount of money is well-spent, considering you only have to do it once. If you can't buy it yourself, ask your parents, or a friend.

In pretty much all cases, the default installation path can be changed. It might take a bit more time to do that in the installer interface, but if you don't want that, simply use the default path and rearrange your files later. With a ZIP file, you also need to create or select a folder of your choice, so there isn't really that much time that is wasted.

The readme is there for a reason - you're supposed to read it. It takes a good amount of time to compile those, and they contain essential information about the download, such as dependency links, potential compatibility problems etc. Modern browsers make use of tabs, so even if you install a large amount of downloads at the same time, you don't get multiple windows. Hint: If you make your browser window smaller, and don't overlap it with your explorer window, you don't have to switch back and forth all the time.

If you really think that downloading our work is wasting too much of your precious time, then please skip our downloads entirely. We spent dozens, if not hundreds of hours for our creation, and we spend additional hours to prepare and upload our work - and everything for free. Some of the issues described above can be avoided if you donate some money and get the LEX (or STEX) CDs/DVDs, which usually have an interface to install several files at once, or other helpful tools. I can only speak for the SFBT downloads, but so far, I never heard of any problems regarding the installation process - every single installer is using the very same principle, the same base path, and the same readme format. It's easy to memorize, skips some of the steps mentioned above (such as the EULA thingy), so everyone should be able to handle it without any problems.

Well, speaking only as a BATter who caught on, there are several tools around that can take the various pieces of a BATted lot and make them into a consolidated .dat file.  This should be done for all such lots, and if there is chaff you want to include in your download, then let me decide if I want it in my plugins folder.  If you are good enough to BAT you can at least use the Files2dat.exe program to reduce any chance of error on the part of a novice user. 

Constructing an installer using questionalble software that does not run on some users' machines is a nuisance, and makes for wasted effort all around.  Big chunks of documentation and pictures, etc. and especially BAT production intermediate .sav files do not belong in the plugins folder.  It is not true that the loader skips them.  It has to at least look at either the file name or the header to see if it should load the file.  A waste of computer cycles for people with big plugin suites.

Now, as to so-called protection of intellectual property, why not just put a copyright notice somewhere in the material.  That is sufficient for most legal systems, and you then don't have to monkey around pretending to be a Microsoft-type outfit trying to protect something that is essentially garbage to most people.  A clear installation instruction if there is anything other than "Put the .dat file into your plugins structure" is the only thing needed.  The copyright notice can simply be in a text or html file that accompanies the download.  Most countries are members of the international copyright union, so a notice that says:

Copyright © yyyy by insert creator's name here.  All rights reserved.

Is sufficient protection.  Otherwise playing corporation is a waste of time.

However, let me exempt from this rant, all large plugin systems like the NAM that include many options and an installer that correctly chooses them.  If you want a documentation folder installed with your product, it should go in documents/SimCity 4/Documentation and not in Plugins.  It isn't much of a job to switch directories, now, is it?  As I recall, it is about three lines of code, maybe even less.

Firstly EULAs, even those from commercial companies, are rarely valid in any jurisdiction other than the Corporate States of America. Copyright exists as soon as you create something - it doesn't even have to be claimed, just proved if you wish to enforce your rights.

EULAs really are completely pretentious - especially in the SC4 custom content context.  And don't get me started on uninvited pop-ups and images I don't need saved in a folder on my machine ...

Just use a bog standard zip file unless you have a multitude of options to offer, as with NAM.

This is the reason why i didn't download CAM again when I restarted my plugins... I had to run hundreds of installers for buildings when if they were zipped; I would have just used winrar to unzip all at once. So much extra work for unnecessary things.

All that unnecessary clicking and post install file moving is annoying since the creator usually doesn't know the structure of my plugins folder!  It's especially annoying when you download a batch of uploads... trying to install 20 files with installers in one go gives me serious finger ache! 

EULA's/TOS just seem a bit pretentious to me.  There's no real need... especially if what simmaster07 says is true!  It would be ok if they had any re-sale value, but SC4 models are pretty useless in the grand scheme of things.  We have a pretty good community for protecting against plagiarism... just look at the STEX! Plagiarists are set up on within minutes!  Each to their own though. 

I recently downloaded some stuff that came with installers - BATs, lots, and texture/prop packs. While I appreciate the effort involved, it's slightly maddening - I can organize my own plugins folder just fine and dandy, thank you. No need for an installer to insist where it goes...

I dont think ive ever agreed with a post more. I hate installers, I have both McAffee and Windows 7 to shut up. Whats wrong with just dumping it in plugins? If it needs a specific place, just tell us in the readme. Then its our fault if it goes wrong.

I'm positive that there are many other people who have many other reasons for disliking installers. Unfortunately, their often our only choice and we have to install everything one-by-one when the uploaders could just include the readme in the description and use DATs and ZIPs. You said you spend more hours to package the installer, but why? Wouldn't it be easier to ZIP it up? Again, I see no professionalism in the fact that we spend lots more time having to use installers than mass extracting with something like WinRAR or with the built-in feature in Windows Explorer.

[adroman]

I think you're missing the point.

If you don't like it, don't download it.

If you want the BAT/Lot/Mod/Whatever, you'll have to put up with how the Uploader has packaged it. Threads like this do little to change people's minds, you've probably only made me more stubborn about putting things in Installers. 

And yes, being in the minority user group does mean you need to buy Filejuicer to use everything properly. Once again, it's your choice. Your choice to buy a Mac, our choice to use installers. It is not ridiculous.
Have you tried getting a Virtual PC for Mac? You could just install XP on there, use it to install the plugins, then transfer them across. It's available here. I use a Virtual PC to run SC4 Mapper, as it does not run on Vista/Window 7 (as far as I know).

Adrian.

[joelyboy911]

I think the point that will come out of this discussion, is that it's the creator's prerogative to package the goods however they like. As a downloader, you can take it or leave it.

If the installer is prepared improperly, then the uploader is fully responsible. If the readme is incorrect, the uploader is responsible. If the uploader makes a typo and unzips to "Plugns" instead of "Plugins," the uploader is still responsible. Though that title is inaccurate and should be changed.

That is why, on many of the SC4 Content Exchanges (LEX, PLEX, CSG-X, etc), there are checks and balances in place to ensure that properly prepared materials are uploaded. And if such a mistake was found in the final version, of course the uploader would fix it. A creator is just as likely to make an error with the actual SC4 files as with the installer, and would have to be a fool to upload them without checking. I don't think this is a valid point against installers in general.

We (I think I can speak as a creator) don't include readmes and information because we think you (as downloaders) are stupid, it's to help make sure everything runs smoothly. As creators we make what we think is best. If you disagree please don't download.