«

Seems to me a lot of really great software

A. doesn't have an "install"

B. doesn't rely on the Windoz registry

C. is happy to work from a folder on the drive

Can Mozilla and Firefox be loaded/updated this way?

I'm dialup and it sucks bandwidth (bandslit?) to download an entire
install package to get (just) the update.

Please elighten me?

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:18:57 -0400, default <>
wrote:

>Seems to me a lot of really great software
>
>A. doesn't have an "install"
>
>B. doesn't rely on the Windoz registry
>
>C. is happy to work from a folder on the drive
>
>Can Mozilla and Firefox be loaded/updated this way?
>
>I'm dialup and it sucks bandwidth (bandslit?) to download an entire
>install package to get (just) the update.
>
>Please elighten me?
that would be: enlighten

Jeez! I used to know how to spell . . . .

default wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:18:57 -0400, default <>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Seems to me a lot of really great software
>>
>>A. doesn't have an "install"
>>
>>B. doesn't rely on the Windoz registry
>>
>>C. is happy to work from a folder on the drive
>>
>>Can Mozilla and Firefox be loaded/updated this way?
>>
>>I'm dialup and it sucks bandwidth (bandslit?) to download an entire
>>install package to get (just) the update.
>>
>>Please elighten me?
>
> that would be: enlighten
>
> Jeez! I used to know how to spell . . . .

The problem with Windows is that IE is part of the system, its
intregated with it in such a manner that if you DONT tell the system
(via the registry) whats going on, Mozilla wont work, only IE will.
The registry exists in windows so that you CAN re-direct connections to
another browser, over-riding the default IE ones.

So, use of the windows registry is a must. An installer is provided for
Windows installations simply because of this, the installer updates the
windows registry so that Mozilla can work.

Due to the nature of the registry a 'static' or 'built in' location is
preferable, so that when the Installer changes the registry it can
re-direct the system to the correct location.
You CAN, if you wish, use another location, but you would have to update
the windows registry to reflect such

So your ABC questions are due to the design of Windows itself, not the
program

The problem with a patch is that the final location on your hard drive
is variable, what with different size drives and available space
limitations, so that knowing exactly WHERE to apply the 'patch' is
unknown. Windows and IE can use patches because the system is written
in only a large block, so the locations only vary due to size of the drive

Note: Other systems dont require an installer per se, on the Mac for
example its a simple matter of copying the Mozilla folder and dropping
it onto your hard drive, ANYWHERE you want. Because there is no 'built
in' browser, all you have to do is specify what browser you wish to use

You dont like the limitatins imposed? Then dont use Windows with its
built-in default IE browser.



--
Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Mozilla Manual - http://mozmanual.mozdev.org/

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:32:48 GMT, Moz Champion
<> wrote:

snipped
>
>The problem with Windows is that IE is part of the system, its
>intregated with it in such a manner that if you DONT tell the system
>(via the registry) whats going on, Mozilla wont work, only IE will.
>The registry exists in windows so that you CAN re-direct connections to
>another browser, over-riding the default IE ones.
>
>So, use of the windows registry is a must. An installer is provided for
>Windows installations simply because of this, the installer updates the
>windows registry so that Mozilla can work.
>
>Due to the nature of the registry a 'static' or 'built in' location is
>preferable, so that when the Installer changes the registry it can
>re-direct the system to the correct location.
>You CAN, if you wish, use another location, but you would have to update
>the windows registry to reflect such
>
>So your ABC questions are due to the design of Windows itself, not the
>program
>
>The problem with a patch is that the final location on your hard drive
>is variable, what with different size drives and available space
>limitations, so that knowing exactly WHERE to apply the 'patch' is
>unknown. Windows and IE can use patches because the system is written
>in only a large block, so the locations only vary due to size of the drive
>
>Note: Other systems dont require an installer per se, on the Mac for
>example its a simple matter of copying the Mozilla folder and dropping
>it onto your hard drive, ANYWHERE you want. Because there is no 'built
>in' browser, all you have to do is specify what browser you wish to use
>
>You dont like the limitatins imposed? Then dont use Windows with its
>built-in default IE browser.

I grok that. I'm under the impression that when the program is
patched (a newer version issued) that the only thing that changes are
the executable files. Is that the way it works?

Why not just replace the executables at 100KB download size versus 5+
megs for the whole installer?

You are saying the registry knows where (on the disk) a program is.
Do you mean physical location on the drive (sector/head etc..) or just
file name and folder location?

Nothing I see in the registry leads me to believe it is recording the
physical locations. That info would be on the file allocation table?

As for knowing the default browser: I really don't care - I'm using
firefox, mozilla, and netscape (each for different tasks). Netscape
V4 is the default browser.

Chaos happened and default said:

> I'm dialup and it sucks bandwidth (bandslit?) to download an entire
> install package to get (just) the update.
>
> Please elighten me?

I downloaded Firefox 0.9.3 (5MB) in about 20 minutes with 56k dial-up.
But AFAIK, when an update is created, other stuff change. So the EXE file
isn't the only thing updated

[]s
--
Chaos Master®, posting from Brazil. REPLY TO GROUP!
MSN: http://marreka.no-ip.com
"You're guilty; the punishment is death for all who live."
-- Iron Maiden, "Out Of The Silent Planet"

default wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:32:48 GMT, Moz Champion
> <> wrote:
>
> snipped
>
>>The problem with Windows is that IE is part of the system, its
>>intregated with it in such a manner that if you DONT tell the system
>>(via the registry) whats going on, Mozilla wont work, only IE will.
>>The registry exists in windows so that you CAN re-direct connections to
>>another browser, over-riding the default IE ones.
>>
>>So, use of the windows registry is a must. An installer is provided for
>>Windows installations simply because of this, the installer updates the
>>windows registry so that Mozilla can work.
>>
>>Due to the nature of the registry a 'static' or 'built in' location is
>>preferable, so that when the Installer changes the registry it can
>>re-direct the system to the correct location.
>>You CAN, if you wish, use another location, but you would have to update
>>the windows registry to reflect such
>>
>>So your ABC questions are due to the design of Windows itself, not the
>>program
>>
>>The problem with a patch is that the final location on your hard drive
>>is variable, what with different size drives and available space
>>limitations, so that knowing exactly WHERE to apply the 'patch' is
>>unknown. Windows and IE can use patches because the system is written
>>in only a large block, so the locations only vary due to size of the drive
>>
>>Note: Other systems dont require an installer per se, on the Mac for
>>example its a simple matter of copying the Mozilla folder and dropping
>>it onto your hard drive, ANYWHERE you want. Because there is no 'built
>>in' browser, all you have to do is specify what browser you wish to use
>>
>>You dont like the limitatins imposed? Then dont use Windows with its
>>built-in default IE browser.
>
>
> I grok that. I'm under the impression that when the program is
> patched (a newer version issued) that the only thing that changes are
> the executable files. Is that the way it works?
>
> Why not just replace the executables at 100KB download size versus 5+
> megs for the whole installer?
>
> You are saying the registry knows where (on the disk) a program is.
> Do you mean physical location on the drive (sector/head etc..) or just
> file name and folder location?
>
> Nothing I see in the registry leads me to believe it is recording the
> physical locations. That info would be on the file allocation table?
>
> As for knowing the default browser: I really don't care - I'm using
> firefox, mozilla, and netscape (each for different tasks). Netscape
> V4 is the default browser.

Okay a 'patch' only replaces (patches) a portion of the code in a
program. But to be able to do so you have to know exactly where that
portion of the program is. AND the patch must be of such a size as to
fit exactly as to the size of the code it replaces. (or the program has
enough blanks <nulls> within that portion to accept the new size)

Example one

JMP <variable>
end loop
null
null
null
JMP <second variable>
end

Could be replaced with
JMP <variable>
else
endloop

overwriting one null statement

If the code was written as
JMP <variable>
endloop
JMP <second variable>
end

Then adding a patch of
JMP <variable>
else
end loop

couldnt work as it overwrites the next command in the code
In this case the entire code must be rewritten.

A patch could also be used if the code is used as variables or as inputs
for something. As was the case with 1.7.1 in which the variable was
simply made false in a configuration file, the program reads those and
sets them. In the case of 1.7.1 the shell is set to true (on) and then
set to false (off) by the added patch. (Or conversely, since the
absolute position of the variable is known relative to the start of the
file, simply replaced) ((Or since the file size of the configuration
file is quite small (relatively) simply rewrites the entire file))

No, the registry doesnt know exactly where each file is, all it does is
contain pointers to the start of the file or the file itself, the system
itself knows where the file and all its parts are

You may not care to know what the default browser is, but WINDOWS sure
does! If you dont set certain parameters in the Windows registry, then
by default, IE will take over. The entire idea of setting Windows
registry is to redirect certain inputs/outputs/conditions to the browser
of your choice.

--
Mozilla Champion
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org
Mozilla Champions - http://mozillachampions.mozdev.org
Mozilla Manual - http://mozmanual.mozdev.org/

On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 00:32:48 GMT,
Moz Champion <> wrote:
> default wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:18:57 -0400, default <>
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Seems to me a lot of really great software
> >>
> >>A. doesn't have an "install"
> >>
> >>B. doesn't rely on the Windoz registry
> >>
> >>C. is happy to work from a folder on the drive
> >>
> >>Can Mozilla and Firefox be loaded/updated this way?

Phoenix/Firebird used to be available with/without an installer,
probably still is.

> >>
> >>I'm dialup and it sucks bandwidth (bandslit?) to download an entire
> >>install package to get (just) the update.
> >>
> >>Please elighten me?
> >
> > that would be: enlighten
> >
> > Jeez! I used to know how to spell . . . .
>
> The problem with Windows is that IE is part of the system, its
> intregated with it in such a manner that if you DONT tell the system
> (via the registry) whats going on, Mozilla wont work, only IE will.
> The registry exists in windows so that you CAN re-direct connections to
> another browser, over-riding the default IE ones.
>
> So, use of the windows registry is a must. An installer is provided for
> Windows installations simply because of this, the installer updates the
> windows registry so that Mozilla can work.

Installation may change some registry settings, but Phoenix ran without
any installation.

> The problem with a patch is that the final location on your hard drive
> is variable, what with different size drives and available space
> limitations, so that knowing exactly WHERE to apply the 'patch' is
> unknown. Windows and IE can use patches because the system is written
> in only a large block, so the locations only vary due to size of the drive

Completely wrong! A patch would be applied to a file, not a disk.
There are so many versions of Mozilla and Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox out
there, and a patch would only be applicable to one particular version
with certain patchs, and a bad patch would break the app in some way.

Windows and IE don't issue patches they issue patched versions of FILEs
to replace the old FILEs. Locations of files can vary tremendously,
they needn't be at the beginning of the disk or partition, or in any
particular order.

Fdisk.exe, Chkdsk.exe, Scandisk.exe, Defrag.exe, Format.exe, and their
NT equivalants operate below the filesystem level, almost all apps
operate on the filesystem so it doesn't matter where a file is on the
disk. Windows update is just another app.

Michael C.
--
http://mcsuper5.freeshell.org/

Registered Linux User #303915 http://counter.li.org/

In article <>, mcsuper5
@usol.com says...

> Phoenix/Firebird used to be available with/without an installer,
> probably still is.

But it still contains all the support files, i.e. *.jar files, *.dll
files, and what not.

I read the question as "why not ship just the new exe?" This is,
however, not always possible, depending on what in the package has been
re-written. Diff makers could create a patch installer (commonly done
with commercial software), but I guess the Mozilla crowd took the easy
route. It also means less problems.