[ut2004] No love with linux installer
craig at cs.montana.edu
Sat Mar 20 14:45:04 EST 2004
On Sat, 2004-03-20 at 18:18, Sean Hamilton wrote:
> Had these CDs been distributed with rockridge extensions, or
> with 8.3 filenames, this wouldn't have been a problem. Both
> of those are totally sane expectations. There is no practical
> reason for the files on the CD to not be 8.3. Of course, these
> are issues with the publisher, and I doubt they are open to
8.3 filenames are not necessary with modern filesystems, so it's not an
unreasonable expectation that you be able handle extensions that allow
for this. Is Joliet the best extension? Probably not, but as these
discs were designed to be read under Windows as well, it's a lot easier
to use Joliet from the publishers point of view.
> Who wrote this thing? Does he read this list? Can he comment?
> Justify these decisions?
The Loki_Installer was first written by Loki Software, I believe Sam
Latinga was the primary coder on it., though I'm not entirely sure on
that. The code is now hosted and maintained at
http://icculus.org/loki_setup/. I sincerely doubt that Sam reads this
list, but he doesn't maintain this software any longer. Bug reports can
be filed for this product at https://bugzilla.icculus.org/.
I agree, theere are some serious design flaws inherent in that software.
> Evidently your definition of ease is flawed. GTK interfaces
> are no substitute for good design.
The installer was designed with a few assumptions in mind. In a modern
Linux kernel, Joliet extensions are not wholly unreasonable, though
there have been others who have had this issue.
Jeff Craig <craig at cs.montana.edu>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the ut2004