regarding the relationship of .exe with software-installers

[krishnaswami.kaushik]

As we know, the common installation/executable format file used for dos, windows and reactos are .exe, which in case of dos' .exe is different from windows (like .rpm are different for two different rpm based linuxes) but they are identical in case of windows and reactos (like .deb are comparatively more flexible for two deb based linuxes).
Windows also has another installation format in .msi which is more difficult to decode outside the ms type frameworks and restricts further thoughts.

This is regarding the understanding of the key role which msi-installer plays in optionally installing both the .exe and .msi formats.
Is the .exe relatively more flexible than .msi in regard of adjustability to both windows' msi and reactos' ros-installer (msi).
Considering the fact that already there are alternative front-ends to msi-installers such as safarp, myuninst, etc then is it also technically possible for a third party to have an alternate back-end mechanism too -- such as alternative regedit, others, etc.

As the installation is a process of simultaneous copying of program files, bin files (under system32) and writing into the registry and regedit entries, etc which the windows/reactos system already handles internally using a collection set of various dll files under C:\windows and C:\windows\system32. Does it make the msi-installer (back-end of add-remove programs) unsubstitutable by any other alternatives.

if the website of one of the other ntos (say for example greengnome) talks of only using the windows based .exe for installation (but not .msi) as a similarity to windows (but having a linux type front-end), does it ultimately imply
a) a 100% cloning of the entire os internals and virtually everything, or
b) cloning of only the msi installer and some main internals, or
b) only decoding of the .exe without need to clone the installer at all.

[rembrandt]

What a complicated question for something simple.
99% of the software for Windows is MSI format (thank god!); even if the file is an .exe, it is usually a "wrapper" for an embedded .msi file; the executable code can be a simple launcher for the extracted msi file or an Installshield front end. The result is the same: the Windows Installer Service handles the registration/unregistration of the files and settings. The beauty of this concept is that it also monitors and can fix corrupted installations on-the-fly.
When a developer writes his/her own installer executable, he/she must create a lot of code to handle all the proper registrations, and the risk that the package will not be portable across platforms because of Windows architecture changes (i.e. NT5 to NT6)
So yes, the OS needs a complete front end/back end implementation of the Windows Installer.
I think the WINE msiexec.exe implementation is getting pretty damn good, but there is still no full blown Windows Installer service implementation.

[krishnaswami.kaushik]

I found from somewhere that the old macosx before the intelmac transition was almost purely pascal based os, which currently it is not but which the greengnome appears to share and begin with in its alpha stage.
Now, macosx uses an installer known as dmg-installer for installing the .dmg files and plus another unknown earlier file format (.hfx, etc).
Therefore, I'm looking for a detailed functional comparison of the dmg-installer with respect to the msi-installer (installshield+regedit, etc).
Although I know that the outcome of the result is not useful at all for this aspect, but nevertheless it does help in understanding the state of current technologies, their difficulties, etc.

[EmuandCo]

i still don't get it what this comparison is for. dmg is like deb or rpm a unix based packet system. msi is windows only and supports the windows only features like registry writes.

[krishnaswami.kaushik]

Ok, so one cannot be able to borrow and port the registry-write and packet type installers across platforms, and that a registry-write installer system is very good in fixing the corrupted software installations, as I found during power failure with an effect as though nothing has happened at all.
I also found macosx also to be equally good for recoveries, whence the focus on dmg.

[krishnaswami.kaushik]

I've got the answer to the question.
Thanks.

[Z98]

Do not double post. Edit last responses.

[krishnaswami.kaushik]

Removed all the posts which you were referring to, and I hope that this solves the problem.

[EmuandCo]

This edit not possible problem still exisits?? Wow.... Wasnt there a workaround?

[EmuandCo]

http://www.reactos.org/forum/viewtopic. ... 024#p50024