Re: web enabled ./runInstaller ?
From: kyle Hailey <kylelf_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:08:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CADsdiQh2JsfywHdi4Ex7FK18dpOK=Sr5GLKuX5G2by8_h2r3uA_at_mail.gmail.com>
I worked back in support in the age of the character based installers (90-98). Pro: it was easy to go into scripts to fix things. Con: it always broke. When the java installer came out it was a big jump in quality and, surpassingly enough, worked quite well. Downside is when it broke there wasn't much way to fix it.
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 09:08:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CADsdiQh2JsfywHdi4Ex7FK18dpOK=Sr5GLKuX5G2by8_h2r3uA_at_mail.gmail.com>
I worked back in support in the age of the character based installers (90-98). Pro: it was easy to go into scripts to fix things. Con: it always broke. When the java installer came out it was a big jump in quality and, surpassingly enough, worked quite well. Downside is when it broke there wasn't much way to fix it.
RPM installer would be cool.
Im just saying in this day and age of ubiquitous web interfaces, Oracle is surprisingly behind the times with a fat client java installer.
Thanks all for great discussion
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:58 AM, MARK BRINSMEAD <mark.brinsmead_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah. That was the plus side. The installer was almost always "broken"
> on the installation media, but it was easy to fix!
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Hans Forbrich <fuzzy.graybeard_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I really enjoyed that interface. It was one I could fix ... and 'make
>> work properly'
>>
>> /Hans
>>
>>
>> On 05/02/2015 9:37 AM, MARK BRINSMEAD wrote:
>>
>>> What about good old "curses".
>>>
>>
>
-- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-lReceived on Fri Feb 06 2015 - 18:08:04 CET