.Net packaging/wrapper application?

[jim]

Hi J,

I took a look at SoftGrid, and it looks like MS took the same technology in
Thinstall/Xenocode and added an application server, authentication and
licensing. Essentially they took a very clean idea and tied its hands to
its feet.

I'm not criticizing MS, but, that's what Microsoft does. They are in
business to make their investors happy - not their software users. They are
in business to make money for the investors, so they will add licensing and
restrictions to everything that they touch in an effort to fulfill their
mission.

This is not a critical statement concerning Microsoft. That's what most
corporations do - server the investors over the customers. Besides, The
head developer on the Office 2007 team wrote that very thing on his blog
when somebody complained about something in Office 2007. He said that
Microsoft was not in the business of pleasing customers, they were in the
business of pleasing investors.

I was not aware of Microsoft's work with the SoftGrid product. It looks
like a decent solution for use inside a large corporate intranet - but not
really for distributed applications outside a corporate environment.

Thanks for the pointer to SoftGrid, but I'm still looking.

This SoftGrid stuff makes it look like we aren't going to get an application
virtualization add-on for .Net studio though.

jim

 

[Eliyahu Goldin]

Read about them before you post. I'm sure that you'll agree that this is

something that is missing in .Net studio.

Perhaps there is no enough demand for this sort of applications. Like
Michael, I don't see ability to run without dotnet as an important benefit.
As a customer, I would rather prefer to use a product that is as standard as
possible. This is important from troubleshooting perspective. If you have a
problem with dotnet, all web is yours. If you limit yourself to a specific
tool, you are bound to them for all support issues.

--
Eliyahu Goldin,
Software Developer
Microsoft MVP [ASP.NET]
http://msmvps.com/blogs/egoldin
http://usableasp.net

 

[jim]

It was the same thing with COM and shared DLLs.

Microsoft thought that (due in part to the expense of hard drive space at
the time) that sharing DLLs would be an answer to the hard drive space issue
and would save RAM by allowinf several applications to share the same DLLs.

It wasn't a bad theory, it just didn't work well in reality due to DLL
versioning issues. As a matter of fact, the simple answer to DLL Hell for
Visual Basic (and I suspect C++) apps was simply to place a copy of the
needed DLLs in the same directory as your executable. The way Windows works
is to look in the executable's directory for a needed DLL BEFORE using the
registry to find one EVEN IF THE REFERENCED DLL IS REGISTERED ON THE PC
RUNNING THE APPLICATION THAT NEED IT.

You didn't have to change one line of code or alter the method of
registering your DLLS. Just drop them in the EXE directory and, BAM, no
more DLL Hell. But, that was way too simple a solution - so we got .Net.

..Net has now gone back to keeping it's files in the same directory AND using
the registry to share .Net framework files.

So, now we are wasting drive space (not that it's that expensive anymore)
AND having to contend with a bloated 25MB+ framework and possible
application failures due to some developers using hotfixes to patch .Net
while others code around the issues found.

Eventually we will get back to the days of a single, linked and compiled
EXE - and it will be all new and shiny again.

!!!! WARNING! The following paragraphs may be offensive to Microsoft
Groupies! Read at your own risk! I will niether be responsible for your
overreactions nor will I respond to them. This is simply an observation and
remarking on another author's observatiuons. !!!!

That reminds me of an article I read the other day about how MS changed the
way apps used to work when they developed Windows. In the old Xerox and
Apple OS's that Gates observed before and while developing Windows, there
used to be something called time sharing (I think thats what it was called)
where all applications were placed in their own workspace and could not
access each other's memory or workspace. It kept applications from screwing
each other up.

Then, according to the author, Microsoft did away with this time
sharing/application segregation because they wanted the applications to look
and be more integrated with Windows in order to sell more software (like
Word, Works, Office, etc.). The author claims that all of this was done to
increase the market share of Windows apps and to increase revenue for the
investors (which, again, is what a corporation is good for).

Now, with the .Net framework, it seems we are getting back to the 1970's
idea of time sharing and application isolation.

I find it quite funny myself. Next, we'll be back to linked compiled
executables and praising it as another Microsoft breakthrough.

jim

 

[jim]

What is it with Microsoft MVPs that they do not read about a subject before
posting on it?

Thinstall and Xenocode change NOTHING about the .Net framework or your
application. They simply wrap all needed .Net functionality and your
executable and any dependent files (like DLLs or ActiveX controls or other
files that your .Net app needs) into a single executable file.

This means that your potential customer that is still on dial-up, the 25+MB
..Net framework may never get downloaded so your apps are worthless to them.

Are people still on dial up? Yep. The last hard figures I could find on
short notice said "It turns out that as few as 28 percent of American
households today have access to broadband Internet. That's according to
reporter Richard Hoffman in a Nov. 20, 2006 Information Week article, citing
data from Government Accountability Office." -
http://blog.tmcnet.com/wireless-mob...s-still-using-dialup-internet-connections.asp.
And, while this report is now just over 1 year old, even if the # of
households with DSL doubled in 12 months (which is HIGHLY unlikely) that
means that 44% of households in the US are still on dial up.

As for your comparison of .Net prgramming to the use of Thinstall or
Xenocode, that only proves that you haven't read anything about either of
them.

MVPs.......God save us from Microsoft MVPs.

jim

Read about them before you post. I'm sure that you'll agree that this is
something that is missing in .Net studio.

Perhaps there is no enough demand for this sort of applications. Like
Michael, I don't see ability to run without dotnet as an important
benefit. As a customer, I would rather prefer to use a product that is as
standard as possible. This is important from troubleshooting perspective.
If you have a problem with dotnet, all web is yours. If you limit yourself
to a specific tool, you are bound to them for all support issues.

--
Eliyahu Goldin,
Software Developer
Microsoft MVP [ASP.NET]
http://msmvps.com/blogs/egoldin
http://usableasp.net

 

[Cor Ligthert[MVP]]

Jim,

"It turns out that as few as 28 percent of American households today have
access to broadband Internet.

I assume that you mean the USA households, however beside that is probably
in those 28% the people that are interested in applications. Those who only
use Interent to browse or to send mail don't need small packages, they
simply don't download.

By the way, this is are International newsgroups, this situation in the USA
does not really interest most of us. (Although I don't believe that this
figur is representative for areas as LA, NY, etc.)

Cor

 

[David Wier]

I agree - with the obfuscation thrown in, the price definitely escalates.

David Wier
http://aspnet101.com
http://iWritePro.com - One click PDF, convert .doc/.rtf/.txt to HTML with no
bloated markup

 

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

We've used RemoteSoft for some time with a fair bit of success. We've also
played with Xenocode a bit.

Of the two, Xenocode seems the better product at this point - it's had fewer
strange problems.

I would have sworn Xenocode didn't have royalties associated with it, but a
quick look through their web site reveals the dark truth - they do! That
really does suck.

 

[jim]

Chris,

At least Salamander doesn't have royalties associated with it.

I have contacted a company about producing similar software to Thinstall for
me to make available to hobbyist programmers with no royalties. So far,
they've said it will cost $2,000 to study the project and give me a price
and time estimates.

I'm considering it.

jim

 

[Tom Shelton]

I am looking for an application that will wrap my .Net application (and any
needed .Net parts) into a single exe.

I know of Thinstall ($4,000 for application and per copy fees for your exes)
and of Xenocode (~$1,500 plus ~ $12 per copy of your exe). But, I'd like
something that is actually affordable for a hobbyist programmer.

This capability (Thinstall's being able to wrap a .Net app and ship it as a
single exe) would be a FANTASTIC addition to the .Net application suite. It
would simplify the shipping & installation and not even require the end user
to have .Net installed or to install the application. It also avoids DLL
and .Net Version Hell.

If Microsoft was going to buy something, one of these technologies should be
it.

If you know of anything like Thinstall or Xenocode that does not require per
copy fees, I'd really appreciate a pointer to it.

Thanks!

jim

Jim - I know of nothing like these products that isn't expensive... I
have read through this thread - so I am familiar with why you think
this would be a desirable product. But, to be honest, I see them as
having very limited usefulness. In fact, other then running directly
off of media (such as usb key or cd/dvd - like an autorun.exe), I
don't really see any need at all.

1) I'm not sure that I agree with your estimates of broadband
penetration:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=10400 (March 2006)
"February saw broadband composition reach an all-time high of 68%,
increasing an impressive 13% over the previous February."

I even found some that say as much as 85%. I know very few people
still on dial-up. In fact, other then my Mother I can't think of any
one I know personally

2) DLL/Version hell? Hmmm, not so much. I mean, I'm not saying that
this is 100% eliminated - I have personally experienced this with sp1
to 1.1, but it's rare enough that it's just not that much of a
concern.

My guess is that if you were to take a poll - not many .NET developers
work in a space were this sort of application is really useful. It
does nothing for web-developers. It does nothing for the guy working
on the in-house system, verticle market application, or bespoke
systems. In all of those cases, your usually dealing with managed
networks and can dictate minimum system requirements. So, click-once,
xcopy deployment, or a basic windows installer project are usually
sufficient for their needs. About the only area I could see this
being useful is the developer targeting more of a mass market
horizontal application - and in that case I have to ask, why are you
using .NET (as a side note, I ask the same thing about VB.CLASSIC)?
And even if you are using it - then it's no big deal to bootstrap and
install the framework as needed (bandwidth issues aside .

So, basically I think that - while these apps are cool - they are
really a niche sort of thing (which explains why they are so
expensive). And, will most likely remain so - just as they have for
the Java and VB.CLASSIC markets.

Anyway, just some random thoughts

 

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

So it turns out I was a bit confused:

The Xenocode product we've played with is PostBuild, which is licensed per
Developer and costs $499. There's no royalties associated with it.

http://www.xenocode.com/Products/Suite/Selection.aspx

.... it'll do the "deploy your app as a single .exe" just like you're looking
for.

 

[Chris Mullins [MVP - C#]]

But, to be honest, I see them as
having very limited usefulness. In fact, other then running directly
off of media (such as usb key or cd/dvd - like an autorun.exe), I
don't really see any need at all.

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Anyone planning on building a widely
deployed .Net application needs to be doing this.

The lack of broad installation support for the .Net framework makes this a
must. In relative terms, nobody has the framework installed. Installation of
the framework requires Admin rights and a reboot.

.... this means if you install the Framework for them, via a bootstrapper or
something similar, the user has a piss-poor opinion of your software before
they've even run a line of your code.

It's very sad that ".Net on the Desktop" isn't a reality. Unfortuantly, the
reality is that MS hasn't pushed it out via Windows update, and doesn't
install it as part of Office, IE, or any other widespread product that I
know of.

.... I've lost alot of sleep over this exact problem, and it's a hot button
for me.

 

[Peter Duniho]

Wow! A little reading goes a long way people.

I agree!

Here's some reading that I think would help you:

http://www.google.com/Top/Computers/Usenet/Etiquette/

Especially those links that lead to:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/primer/part1/
http://infohost.nmt.edu/tcc/help/news/idiot.html

Paying close attention to the sections specific to cross-posting.

Frankly, not even counting your rude behavior toward people who are just
trying to help, the lack of focus in this thread is a great example of why
it's such a bad idea to post to so many broadly unrelated newsgroups.

If you want specific, relevant advice, stick to posting to specific,
relevant newsgroups. If you can't do that, don't complain when the advice
you get doesn't seem specific or relevant enough for your tastes.

Pete

 

[jim]

Chirs,

You're right. It seems to take a little more work than Thinstall, but for
the no royalties part I can stand the extra work.

I was looking at their Virtualization tools.

Thanks for pointing out PostBuild! That's something I can swing.

jim

 

[jim]

Chris,

I fully agree with you there.

If Microsoft is puttting all of its eggs in the .Net basket, why isn't .Net
(a) included with every Microsoft product and (b) made a top priority
download for the nightly updates done by most end users?

If it was so distributed by MS, the distribution costs for .Net apps woudl
be minimal and there would be a lot more of them out there.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

jim

 

[cj]

Can we bring back structured programming while we're at it? Oh nice
linear code--I just got this really peaceful feeling come over me
thinking of that.

Ooops, didn't last. You know maybe I'm not doing it right but with .net
have you run into the situation where you write code and put it on a
network drive and suddenly it doesn't work. You don't have permission
to run it or something. So for every pc that needs to run one of my
programs on the network I have to make sure it's got the correct version
of .net on it and then follow two different procedures, a gui one (MS
..Net Framwork 1.1 Wizards) for 2003 and a command line one (caspol -m
-cg 1.2 FullTrust) for 2005 to set local intranet to full trust so we
can use the program. BTW what's up with going to a command line one for
2005? Are we moving away from gui to the command prompt? And w/o these
groups who would have found that?

I'm trying to get VS2008 now and I'm sure Vista is in my future. I
shudder to think what I'll have to do with them. I think we're coming
to a sad realization--allow or deny?

Anyway, the only constant in this line of work is change so I'm moving

 

[jim]

Jim - I know of nothing like these products that isn't expensive... I
have read through this thread - so I am familiar with why you think
this would be a desirable product. But, to be honest, I see them as
having very limited usefulness. In fact, other then running directly
off of media (such as usb key or cd/dvd - like an autorun.exe), I
don't really see any need at all.

1) I'm not sure that I agree with your estimates of broadband
penetration:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/ITFacts/?p=10400 (March 2006)
"February saw broadband composition reach an all-time high of 68%,
increasing an impressive 13% over the previous February."

I even found some that say as much as 85%. I know very few people
still on dial-up. In fact, other then my Mother I can't think of any
one I know personally

Then there are sites like http://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0704/ that
show (as of December 2006) that show only 50.7% penetration.

I can't seem to find any more current figures. I think that may be by
design. The telcos had rather just say "trust us" than reveal the facts of
how we, as a nation, are falling farther and farther behind in broadband
tchnology and distribution. It's shameful.

2) DLL/Version hell? Hmmm, not so much. I mean, I'm not saying that
this is 100% eliminated - I have personally experienced this with sp1
to 1.1, but it's rare enough that it's just not that much of a
concern.

It's a huge concern for Microsoft. That's why they require you to call in
to get the hotfixes for .Net instead of simply downloading them (or at least
thats the best reason I could come up with for that ridiculous behavior).

My guess is that if you were to take a poll - not many .NET developers
work in a space were this sort of application is really useful.

I would agree with you there. Distribution and maintenance (not to mention
coding) .Net applications is so much more difficult than apss were in
something like VB6, and the performance so much worse from a user
standpoint, that there are only a fraction of the hobbyist programmers that
there used to be that actually put out code for the masses.

It
does nothing for web-developers. It does nothing for the guy working
on the in-house system,

Not true. It greatly simplifies distribution (even eliminating distribution
in the case of streaming Thinstall apps from a central server).

verticle market application, or bespoke
systems. In all of those cases, your usually dealing with managed
networks and can dictate minimum system requirements. So, click-once,
xcopy deployment, or a basic windows installer project are usually
sufficient for their needs.

True. They can dictate the environment. But, why would they want to
install .Net 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and so on ad nauseum when they coudl
simply distribute (or stream) apps from a central server and skip the whole
..Net install? I don't know of one in-house shop that would balk at the idea
of lessening the admins' workload.

About the only area I could see this
being useful is the developer targeting more of a mass market
horizontal application - and in that case I have to ask, why are you
using .NET (as a side note, I ask the same thing about VB.CLASSIC)?

What else would you suggest (seeing as how Microsoft pushes it for their OS
and they supposedly will make the .Net framework play nice with the upcoming
OSs)?

And even if you are using it - then it's no big deal to bootstrap and
install the framework as needed (bandwidth issues aside .
Exactly.

So, basically I think that - while these apps are cool - they are
really a niche sort of thing (which explains why they are so
expensive). And, will most likely remain so - just as they have for
the Java and VB.CLASSIC markets.

I, repsectfully, disagree. I think they remain niche apps because of the
pricing, just as Ferraris occupy niche markets because they are so
expensive.

This pricing is by design. I bought Thinstall back when it was only $750.
I emailed the owner, Jonathan Clark, quite regularly and discussed his price
increase at length with him in emails and on the phone. I do not disagree
with his reasoning for the price increase, and will not discuss it here (as
it was a private conversation with sensitive matters being discussed). But,
I do think that the same thing can be done as an add-in for .Net or as a
stand alone app for far less money than is being charged.

Anyway, just some random thoughts

And, I thank you for them.

jim

 

[jim]

Can we bring back structured programming while we're at it? Oh nice
linear code--I just got this really peaceful feeling come over me thinking
of that.

Ooops, didn't last. You know maybe I'm not doing it right but with .net
have you run into the situation where you write code and put it on a
network drive and suddenly it doesn't work. You don't have permission to
run it or something. So for every pc that needs to run one of my programs
on the network I have to make sure it's got the correct version of .net on
it and then follow two different procedures, a gui one (MS .Net Framwork
1.1 Wizards) for 2003 and a command line one (caspol -m -cg 1.2 FullTrust)
for 2005 to set local intranet to full trust so we can use the program.
BTW what's up with going to a command line one for 2005? Are we moving
away from gui to the command prompt? And w/o these groups who would have
found that?

I have run into the same frustrations.

It seems to me that Microsoft is attempting the impossible - saving users
from themselves.

No amount of code or UAC propmts will save stupid users from installing or
running any free app that they see on the internet. All it will do is
frustrate everyone involved and make PCs more of a chore to use and less of
a pleasure.

That's why (IMHO) the fascination with PCs has fallen away. People that
used to love PCs now dread the very thought of changing their system or
loading a new software package at work. Why? Because they know it won't
work as advertised. They know they are in for at least a week of hell to
get back to a productive system - and that's a best case scenario.

I'm trying to get VS2008 now and I'm sure Vista is in my future. I
shudder to think what I'll have to do with them. I think we're coming to
a sad realization--allow or deny?

As of we'll have that choice in a couple more releases of Windows. Perhaps
they should consider renaming the OS Shutters?

Anyway, the only constant in this line of work is change so I'm moving on
now. Good luck in your quest.

Thanks! And to you too!

jim

 

[Tom Shelton]

I couldn't disagree more strongly. Anyone planning on building a widely
deployed .Net application needs to be doing this.

Which is exactly the market that I said I saw the usefulness for this
application futher down in the post. But, personally, I would never
choose .NET for a horizontal, mass distributed application. That
would have to be something more standalone - like C++, Delphi, or
maybe PowerBasic (personally, I'd probably choose C++).

The lack of broad installation support for the .Net framework makes this a
must. In relative terms, nobody has the framework installed. Installation of
the framework requires Admin rights and a reboot.

Nobody? Really. Do you have stats on that. It's been part of
Windows update for a long time, though optional so you could be
correct. But, frankely, I don't believe most .NET developers are
working in that space anyway.

... this means if you install the Framework for them, via a bootstrapper or
something similar, the user has a piss-poor opinion of your software before
they've even run a line of your code.

Why? Because you install a dependency? Please.

It's very sad that ".Net on the Desktop" isn't a reality. Unfortuantly, the
reality is that MS hasn't pushed it out via Windows update, and doesn't
install it as part of Office, IE, or any other widespread product that I
know of.

They have pushed via windows update - but as an optional update.

... I've lost alot of sleep over this exact problem, and it's a hot button
for me.

If it's a problem for you, then I respectfully have to say your using
the wrong toolset.

 

[Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]]

I recently wrote a short article on this subject with a simple example, just
out of curiosity:

http://www.eggheadcafe.com/tutorial...8-10ac501f430a/obfuscation-and-packaging.aspx

Hope it helps.
-- Peter
Site: http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog: http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com
MetaFinder: http://www.blogmetafinder.com

 

[Tom Shelton]

Then there are sites likehttp://www.websiteoptimization.com/bw/0704/that
show (as of December 2006) that show only 50.7% penetration.

I can't seem to find any more current figures. I think that may be by
design. The telcos had rather just say "trust us" than reveal the facts of
how we, as a nation, are falling farther and farther behind in broadband
tchnology and distribution. It's shameful.

I just don't believe it's that low. I suppose, there are regions of
the country where that is the case, some rural areas, but overall - I
believe it's well over half.

It's a huge concern for Microsoft. That's why they require you to call in
to get the hotfixes for .Net instead of simply downloading them (or at least
thats the best reason I could come up with for that ridiculous behavior).

They do the same for windows hotfixes as well. Hotfixes are simply
not completely tested. They usually end-up getting rolled into a sp
or an update.

I would agree with you there. Distribution and maintenance (not to mention
coding) .Net applications is so much more difficult than apss were in
something like VB6, and the performance so much worse from a user
standpoint, that there are only a fraction of the hobbyist programmers that
there used to be that actually put out code for the masses.

Wow... I can't disagree more there. On pretty much every point. I
used to hate having to roll out new versions of my VB5/6 based app.
Even though it was on dedicated hardware, there were almost always
problems (particularly with a specific 3rd party component - that will
remain nameless). Oh, upgrades would go well for 95% of the machines,
but you would almost always end up with a few that would be borked and
have to then spend hours trying to figure out why. With the .NET
version, I very rarely had upgrade issues..

Not true. It greatly simplifies distribution (even eliminating distribution
in the case of streaming Thinstall apps from a central server).

How is that an advantage? On in-house system, your simply going to
push the framework to all your machines and setup a click-once
deployment - all for free. It just doesn't buy you anything in this
case.

True. They can dictate the environment. But, why would they want to
install .Net 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, and so on ad nauseum when they coudl
simply distribute (or stream) apps from a central server and skip the whole
.Net install? I don't know of one in-house shop that would balk at the idea
of lessening the admins' workload.

Because it's easy and cheap on a managed network to just push it out
if it's needed.

What else would you suggest (seeing as how Microsoft pushes it for their OS
and they supposedly will make the .Net framework play nice with the upcoming
OSs)?

C++, Delphi, PowerBasic - pretty much anything that will compile to a
standalone exe.

Exactly.

So, what's the problem? You distribute on a cd, you include the
redistrib. bootstrap and install if needed. No big deal.

I, repsectfully, disagree. I think they remain niche apps because of the
pricing, just as Ferraris occupy niche markets because they are so
expensive.

That maybe partially true... But, these have been around for a long
time, and if anything there getting more expensive. And I have rarely
come across anyone that actually uses them.

This pricing is by design. I bought Thinstall back when it was only $750.
I emailed the owner, Jonathan Clark, quite regularly and discussed his price
increase at length with him in emails and on the phone. I do not disagree
with his reasoning for the price increase, and will not discuss it here (as
it was a private conversation with sensitive matters being discussed). But,
I do think that the same thing can be done as an add-in for .Net or as a
stand alone app for far less money than is being charged.

Maybe - I'd be very suprised if it took off.

And, I thank you for them.

Your welcome