anyone who thinks web tech is best practice on the fucking desktop should be expelled from the whole field
said ford would consume way too much gas and produce way too much noise, among other things. but what’s the problem with the current installer? that it doesn’t have curly corners, and that it has too many options which is confusing to those with no reading comprehension?
So I suppose you never use a browser to run a web application on the desktop :thinking_face: Anyway it;s a client server architecture designed for remote installation on servers as well as local installations. It makes sense to have one installer do both.
As to the old installer, when you knew about the un-obvious features, it was brilliant from a user perspective, but I’m willing to bet that from a developer perspective, it was hard to maintain, hard to add new features to, and fragile.
anyone who thinks web tech is best practice on the fucking desktop should be expelled from the whole field
said ford would consume way too much gas and produce way too much noise, among other things. but what’s the problem with the current installer? that it doesn’t have curly corners, and that it has too many options which is confusing to those with no reading comprehension?
So I suppose you never use a browser to run a web application on the desktop :thinking_face: Anyway it;s a client server architecture designed for remote installation on servers as well as local installations. It makes sense to have one installer do both.
As to the old installer, when you knew about the un-obvious features, it was brilliant from a user perspective, but I’m willing to bet that from a developer perspective, it was hard to maintain, hard to add new features to, and fragile.
I’m already running too many browsers in some trenchcoat on the desktop.
that does not warrant a browser. not only JS can do HTTP requests