The Design of Software (CLOSED)

A public forum for discussing the design of software, from the user interface to the code architecture. Now closed.

The "Design of Software" discussion group has been merged with the main Joel on Software discussion group.

The archives will remain online indefinitely.

Is it okay to install in appdata-folder (google talk & chrome)

Both Google Talk & Chrome are not installed in the default Program Files folder. They get installed in user's application data folder.

Is this a good "design" for an installer?
Bill
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
 
 
It's easier to create an automatic update function to replace EXEs and DLLs as the AppData is write enabled by default for normal users.

I would stick to Program Files.
n'
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
 
 
Thansk n' - If its easier to update, why do you recommend to stick to program files?
Bill
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
 
 
Any company trying to tighten security will probably remove execute permission on the AppData folder.
Adrian
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
 
 
Adrian, that is true for larger organisations, but my mother will not do that.

For B2B putting things in user folders is probably a bad idea, for B2C it may be a very good idea.
Karel Thönissen Send private email
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
 
 
It is an excellent design, because it allows the secret update of these applications in ways not intended by the original developers without these stupid permissions protectively jumping in the way.
Malware is money
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
 
 
I pointed this out as being a problem for me when the whole Google Chrome thing first came out. I have multiple user accounts on my computer (Admin, Me, Wife, Daughter, etc.). This means that I have to have multiple instances of Chrome installed on my computer which is ridiculous. The installer should at least be able to allow me to install a single copy that all users share.

And as others have pointed out, this isn't going to fly for most enterprises. It is also a major security hole as hackers can easily update your Google Chrome install without admin privileges.

I'm not a Mac user at all so I could be way off on this. But isn't it true that this is the standard way that Macs typically work (per-user installs of program files without requiring admin privileges)?

Finally, even Microsoft will install programs under the per-user folder. This is how click-once works. So there is some precedent for this type of install. But a browser is hardly a click-once type of application.
dood mcdoogle
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
 
 
Dude, it's like, Google. So it must be OK. I mean, they'd never be... evil... would they?

Stop worrying and give yourself to the Plex, body and soul. Resistance is futile.
All your information is belong to Google
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
 
 
>> Adrian, that is true for larger organisations, but my mother will not do that.

Your mother might not but how do you know Microsoft won't decide someday to push it to her in an automatic update?  It's fairly clear what should be in "Application Data" versus "Program Files" and it wouldn't be surprising if Microsoft did something to prevent abuse if it ever becomes a problem.
SomeBody Send private email
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
 
 
Yeah, it would not really be a huge surprise to me to see at some point in the future that .exe and .dlls would be prohibited from running from the app data dir.

I have not heard anything specifically about that but it is a pretty logical progression...

As a best practice I would say stick with the standard and install program files in, uh "Program Files", and write data to the app data dir.


What I wish for would be that there was a standard writeable sub-directory name that was under a program's main folder so that app data could be stored in a nearby location with the program files instead of in some totally different folder. But that's not how it got set up in Windows.
Michael G
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
 
 
Frankly I miss the day where installing software was a simply of copying it into a directory and uninstalling it was a simple as deleting it.

Why in god's name can't someone come up with a self-contained deployment mechanism? :)
Gili Send private email
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
 
 
"Frankly I miss the day where installing software was a simply of copying it into a directory and uninstalling it was a simple as deleting it.

Why in god's name can't someone come up with a self-contained deployment mechanism? :)"

This is how it is for the majority of Mac applications.
John Topley Send private email
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
 
 
And for the majority of .NET applications.

Thursday, September 11, 2008
 
 
>"And for the majority of .NET applications. "

Only the very simple ones. And only if the author/vendor chooses to use the xcopy deployment model.
dood mcdoogle
Thursday, September 11, 2008
 
 
True, but the point is one actually *can* choose that with .NET. Of course you need an installer if you need to set up a db backend, services, or want shortcuts/registry entries.

Thursday, September 11, 2008
 
 

This topic is archived. No further replies will be accepted.

Other recent topics Other recent topics
 
Powered by FogBugz