Re: Stand Alone EXE

From: Jon Skeet [C# MVP] (skeet_at_pobox.com)
Date: 03/20/05 

Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2005 09:27:36 -0000

Jim Hubbard <reply@groups.please> wrote:
> > But .NET 1.1 requires things that W95A doesn't provide - otherwise MS
> > would have made it run there. If Thinstall is shipping the libraries
> > from other OSes in order to run, I think there's a serious potential
> > legal issue which would worry me considerably. (I think there already
> > is in shipping *bits* of the .NET framework, to be honest.)
>
> I had asked Jonathan about the legal issues long ago and he assures me that
> there aren't any that they are aware of. Microsoft has looked into
> Thinstall. You can read their review at
> http://thinstall.com/help/index.html?msdnfeb2005.htm .
>
> If there were legal issues, I'm sure that Microsoft would not have issued
> this review, and would have surely contacted JIT with any concerns by now.

So why haven't they given their official blessing to it?

> > I don't think it can actually be done. I'd never trust Thinstall to run
> > exactly the same as the real .NET any more than I'd trust two OSes to
> > run exactly the same way.
>
> It does not seem that you would be interested in Thinstall. And, that's
> perfectly fine. Not everyone will be interested in Thinstall. Some people
> like to stick with the old methods of software distribution. I don't sell
> Thinstall. But, if I can point you to something that may help you, I am
> happy to do so.

I *am* interested in Thinstall, mostly in my capacity as an MVP.
Unfortunately, that capacity doesn't seem to make me good enough to
deserve an evaluation...

> So why all the questions about a product you are not interested in? IMHO,
> you really should try Thinstall (or any application) before you pass
> judgement.

I *would* try it - if their wretched web site allowed me to, as an
enthusiast. However, in order to get an evaluation version, I'd have to
use my work email address. As I would be evaluating it as an MVP rather
than for work (at the moment) they've cut me out of evaluation. Not
exactly an encouraging start, frankly.

> > Yes, but if I'm going to have two different deployment models, one with
> > Thinstall and one without, that doubles the testing effort. I need to
> > test on XP with Thinstall, XP without Thinstall, 2000 with Thinstall,
> > 2000 without Thinstall etc.
>
> You won't have 2 deployment models. The idea is to use Thinstall as your
> sole deployment model. This way you would still have the same testing that
> you have today.

That means it effectively penalises those who already *have* the
framework, and want to download just your application, rather than half
of the framework again. If you've already got the framework, 2.7MB for
a "hello world" program is utterly ridiculous.
 
> If you could deploy your applications as a single EXE that requires no
> external dependencies, has built-in licensing, has auto-update
> functionality, does not require administrative privileges to "install" and
> run, encrypts your internal exes and data and will not be adversly affected
> by changes to the .Net framework - why would you also do a deployment
> without Thinstall?

Because those external dependencies may already be there, I may well
already have a separate licensing model to integrate into other parts
of my app, I may not want or even desire auto-update, my app may well
require admin privileges to install anyway, I may have no particular
desire to encrypt my internal executables, and I may wish to get the
benefit of improvements to the framework that service packs etc make
available without having to redistribute my app.

> >> Like I said, Thinstall is not for everyone. But, professional developers
> >> will see the value of Thinstall very quickly.
> >
> > I think many will see some of the problems I've outlined too though.
>
> Maybe I've missed something. I don't see any problems. Could you please
> post the problems you see for the benefit of folks like me that may have
> missed them?

1) Potential legal issues. You may have dismissed them as not a
problem, but that doesn't mean everyone else will. Heck, even the
vendors recognise is as a problem. (It's in the "Cons" section on one
of their pages.)

2) Cost.

3) Discouraging interested parties from evaluating it.

4) If a customer downloads several Thinstall products (or even several
versions of my Thinstall product) they'll have downloaded more than if
they'd downloaded the framework once and then the products
individually.

5) For system administrators, having control over the installed
application using the framework security control panel is better than
the app having full control. Of course, this may not be an issue - I
wouldn't know, as JITIT have decided that my skeet@pobox.com email
address isn't good enough to deserve an evaluation.

6) Unless debugging protection is enabled, I *suspect* that there are
still (reasonably easy) ways to decompile the .NET code, using cordbg
to get access to the decrypted resources. If I ever get to evaluate
Thinstall properly, I'll give it a try.

7) Slower startup time (as acknowledged on the Thinstall site).

8) Harder to debug (I gather).

9) Another potential point of failure - it's an extra technology rather
than a replacement one; if JITIT decides to up its prices, or goes
belly-up, you're back to square one. 

-- 
Jon Skeet - <skeet@pobox.com>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Stand Alone EXE
    ... >> Thinstall. ... However, in order to get an evaluation version, I'd have to ... > framework, and want to download just your application, rather than half ... have admin rights to install and run your app or that another app won't ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • thinstall violates .net license?
    ... I want to distribute an app with thinstall - it creates a virtual machine with .net linked in so you don't have to distribute the framework. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.framework)
  • Re: Stand Alone EXE
    ... > Please stick to asking questions that a USER of Thinstall would ... >> framework, and want to download just your application, rather than half ... > your code or that tthey will not install them in the future or that they ... > have admin rights to install and run your app or that another app won't ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)
  • Re: Stand Alone EXE
    ... >> Thinstall apps are still a lot larger than a simple exe output from .Net. ... If you downloaded the .Net framework and the code needed ... You give people the option to download the Framework or stand alone EXE. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.general)