> I am regularly faced with the challenge that Windoze users expect that no
> installation procedure should be more complicated than the most simplest
> software. It's odd, as they are happy to reboot two or three times to get IE
> to work, but refuse to contemplate any non-M$ish software that wants a
> similar process. The challenge to get these people to use and promote LyX
> will be to have a working Windoze install requiring minimal configuration.
>
> Regarding a bootable linux distribution with LyX, it is may not be necessary.
> I think that it can be done, using one of the smaller distros, but Linux
> users generally understand the binary packaging system used by their
> distribution of choice (rpm, tgz or whatever). I set up a few mandrake boxen
> recently and was happy to see LyX on the install CD. Regarding Windoze users,
> I think that the Cygwin path is the one to follow, but not to the point where
> it begins to impact on the further development of LyX.
I am personnally using some installer/wrapper called "InnoSetup" for
the creation of Windows installers.
You basically name the files that you want to have in the package and say
which kind of desktop shortcut should be created etc, run the "package
compiler" and get a single, idiot proof .exe in the end.
In case of LyX this would probably mean installing an X server, LyX, LaTeX
etc on some machine, find out which files are needed, generate the
package, and give the end user not much choice where to install the whole
150-MB-thingy. But Windows users are used to pain, aren't they?
The package compiler is Windows only, but runs pretty well under wine (as
do the generated installers) In fact, I use makefile targets 'wdist' that
compose the packager's setup file and run everything under Linux.
Andre'
--
André Pönitz ............................................. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
