h a l f b a k e r yNaturally, seismology provides the answer.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
there should be some sort of legal tie up between
operating system makers and the companies which make
software products. Generally some superior authority (not
sure if something already exists) which regulates all this
stuff.
And then there should be a procedure in operating system
where
we can define how new software installations should
be handled..and we freeze this procedure as per our needs
So next time you click on a flashing 'download' button, the
next popup you see should be 'successfully installed'...no
need to click 'next' button so many times, and then chose
the specific folder for installation, then click on 'i agree'
button else it does not let you get in...so basically we need
to sit in front of it until done...
example of advantage of this so called regulation set by
supreme authority:
we sign an universal law and say that 'any software we
install, we will be bound by their respective laws'...and this
will prevent us on clicking 'i agree' button each time we
install a new software
Zero Install
http://0install.net/
Like this..? [prufrax, Aug 19 2011]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
forgot to add...in case you still want to go for custom
installation, you can chose in first popup itself, after
which you will follow usual old way of installation.. |
|
| |
//we sign an universal law and say that 'any software we install, we will be bound by their respective laws'// |
|
| |
So part of this idea is "make software EULAs legally meaningful"? [-] |
|
| |
Most of the stuff I install asks right off the bat if I want to go for the default or a custom installation. No offense but I can't be arsed installing stuff which doesn't let me do that; in itself that provides a bit of quality control as to what goes on my computer. |
|
| |
[marked-for-deletion] the poster wishes to
legislate for something so that they don't
personally have to worry about it anymore. While
the underlying motivations may be reasonable, it's
not really new or original enough (i.e. legislate for
x) for this place. Sorry ravi - how about looking at
this from a technological, or economic angle, is
there a way to promote this kind of behaviour
naturally, without having to send non-compliant
folks to prison, or placing fines on companies for
ignoring the law? |
|
| |
If you look at other (non Windows) oses you might
find that there's already something like this in
place. For example, if you untar an installation file
on a unix system, you already have pretty good
control over where you want it to live - any kind
of 'package' is going to take *some* control away
from the end user - I think it would be very
difficult to describe in legislation, exactly where
to draw that line. |
|
| |
Also, lots of installation packages can be run from
the command line with options pre-entered to
avoid the GUI presenting the user with
opportunities to pause or cancel the installation -
the whole 'wizard' thing was added after lots of
users asked for just that type of functionality to
be added - it would be a pain to have to turn
all of that off, because a different set of users
wanted to do things differently - you can't please
all of the people all of the time - BUT - you can
give them the freedom to choose different
operating systems on the open market that match
their preferences more closely. Like we do
already. |
|
| |
[ravi] - please - PLEASE - do yourself a favor: go find five different software packages, by different but major vendors, and READ (not scan, not once-through, but for-comprehension-dammit READ) the user agreements that you're saying we should make limitlessly binding, sight unseen, on all who install that software. |
|
| |