TGB is back with more interesting comments.
Thanks for your comments, TGB! Let me respond to a few:
Vendor-supplied DMGs are standard for distribution, however they are not standard for deployment.
You say that only because your deployment software doesn’t support deploying directly from a drag-n-drop disk image. I think this is a case where we should bow to reality — since a lot of software is distributed this way, your software deployment system should make it easy to deploy software distributed in this format.
Default settings are part of deployment. They simply are.
Most consumers seem to be able to purchase, install and use third-party software with the default settings as chosen by the vendor. We find that also to be the case in our environment — we don’t have to customize settings very often. But when we do, we have lots of available tools to do so. Not having to (re)package the software itself gives us more time to spend on adding value for our organization.
I’m completely comfortable packaging Flash by hand.
That’s great. So am I. But not every admin is, judging by all the packaging questions I’ve seen. More importantly, what’s the value of hundreds or thousands of admins repeating the same task, but perhaps doing it slightly differently? Let’s have the vendor do that work.
I don’t work in a rigid corporate environment.
Neither do I!
4 thoughts on “Flashpoint and Counterpoint”
It’s not a case of comfort, it’s that it’s not my job to repackage the Flash team’s installer so that basic, core functionality is correct after the install.
I have other things that require my attention. If the Flash team cannot get the installer right, it’s not like FP is as necessary as it used to be.
I don’t mind subsidizing Adobe’s dev team if we end up with a deliberate, manageable solution (ala AAMEE or even better, proper PKG/MPKG installers).
PS, Jody Rodgers is a great example of Adobe acknowledging a problem and making a concious decision to FIX the problem, rather than duct-tape it.
PS#2, Jody Rodgers for President! 😀
Long time follower, never commented before… I find it hard to believe that anyone could justify or write off Adobe’s stubbornness about creating non-standard installers. If Apple did not have a free, working, flexible, supported and easy to understand installer system I could perhaps understand Adobe’s desire to roll it’s own… But to ignore the PKG system and create their own inferior and poorly supported system is a waste of Adobe’s efforts, causes problems for the hundreds or thousands of system admins out there, and in my opinion is a crime that should be punished with a good public flogging ;).
Two more words.
Two final words.
Comments are closed.