On 9/26/12 4 :46AM, "Erik de Bruin" <e...@ixsoftware.nl> wrote:
>Bertrand, > >> FLEX-33210 problem earlier, but as I said i'm very surprised that no >> one else here seems to be bothered by Flex software blindly installing >> stuff on user's boxes. > >Well, the user expects the installer to install a functional SDK. The >Apache Flex SDK itself contains thousands of files, including binaries >with all the executable bits set, and there's no way the user is going >to verify the functionality of all of them. They need to trust these >files 'do no harm'. So, by extension, if the SDK is dependant on >binaries from another source, and it won't function without them, the >user will implicitly need to trust that source, reasoning that if the >source wasn't trusted, the SDK wouldn't (be able to/want to) rely on >it. So, adding the dialog adds an extra step to the installer and all >the talk about 'untrusted' and 'unverified' will almost certainly >create a sense of FUD, which is IMHO unhelpful at this point in this >project's development. > >People have become sceptical about Flex's future, mostly by Adobe's >unfortunate communications and the initial handling of the OS release. >Right now I feel we should try to regain their trust and give them >back the feeling they can rely on Apache Flex to remain and be >continually developed. We do this by providing easy access to the SDK, >with as few steps and distractions as possible, allowing people to >quickly adopt the Apache Flex SDK and feel confidant about upgrading >to future releases. Only with that trust and the comfortable feeling >that their favourite SDK is in good hands with this project, will all >the other work (compiler, components etc.) have purpose. I am in total agreement with the above paragraph. I just re-looked at the installer. If you click the Disclaimer button it takes you to [1] and I think all the relevant information is there. We could further enhance it with a list of every single binary we "install" if that would address FLEX-33210. As Nick pointed out "install" isn't really the right word. We're just creating the SDK which consists of a directory of files which are pulled from various sources. an aside: I do wish we would remove the abbreviation AFI from [1] and spell out Apache Flex Installer. I had to read the page a couple of times before I figured out what AFI was. Carol [1] http://incubator.apache.org/flex/about-binaries.html
