Talk:Installation (computer programs)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Installation (computer programs) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Software: Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Early unsectioned discussions

I think it's a fine idea to merge "headless install" with "Installation (computer programs)". Neither article is very long or complicated and there are good synergies. Kaimiddleton 22:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'll try and do this tomorrow, unless someone disagrees. Gflores ^Talk 23:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Of the external links in "Unattended installation", one is not working; the others have been added to installer, where they in fact belong. --Gennaro Prota 20:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why some installers require reboot, perhaps this information should be included in the article //Jeppe Ibsen DK

Programs that don't require installation

As alluded to in the article, some programs do not have a formal install process and only require that you copy (or more likely, unzip) the files somewhere and run the executable. Is there a term for this type of distribution scheme? For example, if I come to you with a list of all programs that are present on a computer, I would say "this is a list of installed programs and this is a list of x programs" -- what word would be appropriate for x? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.99.30 (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Resolving this issue is on my todo list. Perhaps I'll add a {{todo}} template to mention it here. The most common terminology I have heard is that such programs "don't require installation"; however the definition I formulated for the article is in contradiction with that, as copying their files to your hard disk (for instance) is an "act of putting the program in your computer system so that it can be executed". FWIW, even just inserting a floppy and run the program from there could be considered in the same way. So, either "don't require an installation" is technically incorrect or my definition is. —Gennaro Prota ^•Talk 23:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some terms that you're looking for include "XCopy" or "ZeroClick" deployment, or simply "installationless" programs/deployment. You could also come up with your own term since I don't think there's really an agreed-upon standard, though XCopy is probably the most "official" name for it, based on the xcopy dos command (which ironically is now deprecated I believe). Something like "direct-copied" or "drag and drop install" would work. Logan1337 (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definition "act of putting the program in your computer system so that it can be executed" does not seem accurate enough to me, particularly term "putting the program in computer system". What this supposed to mean? If this mean "any system resource" then "live cd" software execution in RAM should be considered as installation as well. File system? Does it matter if the file system where files reside is local, remote (e.g. exported over network) or virtual? Does it matter if the file system is on remote block device? Excuse me, but the definition "act of putting the program in your computer system so that it can be executed" seems to be unclear and uncertain, imho.--Yurisumm (talk) 22:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What?

I can't make sense of the last sentence here:

As a compromise between the Windows installer concept and the package management systems of UNIX-like systems, Windows installation management systems exist. Many of these form a part of a systems management software (and in some cases open source) alternatives exist.

- furrykef (Talk at me) 16:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, to some extent anyway. I still think it's not perfect, but at least the intent behind the sentence is now clear. Wrldwzrd89^talk 14:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

installation

gracias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.129.193 (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between different types of pc and not.

Often on shells, you do something like ./configure first. This is often because there are so many more variables, like architecture. I think the article should be split into visual installers and configuring installers. Visual ones, like Windows, Mac are generally different files for different architectures, whereas config installers find the nessecary params and build for that system. 86.144.223.31 (talk) 09:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

./configure is part of a build process, not part of an install process. Mr. Shoeless (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bootstrapper into separate article?

I was redirected to this page when searching for "bootstrapper". While it's true many setup programs involve a bootstrapper, there is nothing specific to installation about the concept of a bootstrapper, and I don't think it should be redirecting here. It's a specific notion all its own in computer science.

In short, a bootstrapper is a sort of (usually minimal) wrapper or adapter around a module that allows it to be plugged into a different system, or customized externally to the internal module while appearing as a single object. So with installers, this is often done by executing a bootstrapper that checks requirements and figures out what internal components need to be run, but you could also imagine a bootstrapper that allows an executable from another operating system to be emulated, for example, which would not have anything to do with setup/installation. Logan1337 (talk) 17:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a part of the installation process, bootstrapping should be explained here. I try to write this part. Thomas Maierhofer (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claim needs reference

The place where it's said:

"Silent installation" is not the same as "unattended installation", though it is often improperly used as such.

needs a reference. Otherwise it makes no sense to claim that "it is often improperly used..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.145.238.224 (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PMS' for Widows?

"As a compromise between the Windows installer concept and the package management systems of UNIX-like systems, Windows installation management systems exist. "

For example? --Abdull (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that windows update (including WSUS) is such a compromise, where the packages can be selected manually or automatically updated, but are also available as separate installers. The add/remove programs dialogue could also be seen as analogous to a package manager (but with much fewer options) --94.173.178.140 (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual installation?

The subheading on virtual installation talks about editing LISP files by hand to achieve a virtual installation, and at no point actually describes what a virtual install is or why one might want one. Could somebody who knows what it's referring to please update with appropriate information or links? 208.76.69.126 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the section, since it seemed irrelevant nonsense and no one fixed it in two years. Fleet Command (talk) 14:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

instating data from disc

how do I install data from my disc to my comp? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.92.240 (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal for Application packaging

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Turned into a disambiguation. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Application packaging article pretty much tells the story behind computer program installations, so it should be merged into the Installation (computer programs) article. Though, it is true that containers provide something different than what computer program installations do, what the source article also covers briefly, but that could also be described nicely in the destination article. Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this has been cooking for long enough. On second thought, there's little to be merged and "application packaging" might be a little ambiguous term, so went ahead and turned the article into a simple disambiguation page. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OEM installation

One could add OEM installation, where the installation is executed by the manufacturer before the first user. BartYgor (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]