🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6457@netnews.upenn.edu> ranjit@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Ranjit Bhatnagar) writes:
}This is a nice idea, but I'm starting to worry about the
}proliferation of handlers, devices, and libraries.  If
}REXX: were to become standard, we would need to install
}libs:arexx.library, l:rexx-handler, and the actuall AREXX
}server itself (lives in c: I guess - I don't actually own
}AREXX).  This is not really a complaint about AREXX - rather,
}I feel that the proliferation of support files makes things
}confusing for inexperienced users.  I've done a bunch of
}thinking about how to automate the process of installing
}and REMOVING software that requires support files - and I
}haven't come up with anything worthwhile.  Any thoughts?

I absolutely agree with you about this problem of complex installation
procedures.  Much as we hackers hate to believe it, more and more Amigas
are being sold to simple users, not programmers (and the fate of the
machine depends on it!).  The majority of technical support calls that
we get for our products (Microfiche Filer and Microfiche Filer Plus)
are from users that want to solve a problem using their computer, use
Workbench exclusively, and barely understand the concept of nested
subdirectories, much less that some like devs: and libs: exist but are
invisible!

My opinion is that it is up to the software manufacturers to provide
	1) a clear, printed description of the installation procedure, and
	2) an icon that does ALL of the work for them!
If a user can't even get the software installed easily, odds are that
he will either put it back on his shelf, or worse, return it to the dealer,
meaning another lost sale to the developer.

---Another pet peeve---
We've been getting a number of calls recently with people complaining
about our software giving them a message on startup about a missing
library.  It turns out that a number of manufacturers are releasing
software which includes the workbench, but are taking libraries (like
mathieeedoubbas.library) out of libs: to save space.  When the novice
user then tries to run software which asks for this library, the user says
"Wadda ya mean?  I booted with a Workbench disk!"

---PLEASE include the FULL Workbench...or better yet, don't include the
   Workbench at all, but include an installation program for the user.
   (How many programs are still on the shelves with Workbench 1.2 on them?)

	Just my humble opinion, but based on direct experience...
		Gary