> email@example.com wrote:
>> Hello all
>> I've tried downloading tortoise but I cannot find anything
>> other than an .msi file to download.
> Of course. We only provide an msi file.
>> Are .msi files really able to do everything that an
>> executable installer can do, or is it because someone
>> is following the latest fashion.
> msi files can do even *more* than an executable installer. And that's
> because msi files are executed by the MS installer service, which runs
> with SYSTEM privileges, not the privileges of the user who started the
> setup. That's why you don't necessarily need ADMIN rights to install
> TSVN - if the domain Admin configured your computer correctly, a normal
> user can install it (because the MS installer has *more* rights than
> even an ADMIN has).
That's actually quite a good reason. The best one.
> And it's not the 'latest fashion'. Msi is already at version 3.1 and has
> been around for quite some time now. And in Vista, it's the only real
> option to install a program (if you want to avoid major problems with
>> To download the msi package from microsoft I need
>> to get windows installation "validated", which means
>> I have to install WGA or equivalent on a machine, forever
>> letting it phone home (it's not uninstallable!).
> I'm sorry, but every time I hear a user complaining about WGA I
> automatically suspect him using a copy which wasn't paid for.
That's probably due to some mishearing on your part. Sorry, I
can't change what you hear :-(.
OTOH, if you want to call someone a thief, it's probably best to
just say it and not obliquely imply it. This makes it easier to
defend ones position (hard to defend against vague implications,
> What would you have against something "phoning home" (it only downloads
> a file, it doesn't *send* anything) if you know you have a valid license?
This is a Dell desktop; it says GX240 on the front around the
power button, there's a licence sticker on the side. I doubt Dell
is going around selling computers with pirated software.
You should, before assuming that anyone who doesn't want
to renegotiate a formerly fair deal, place yourself into
their shoes. I might seem a little harsh, but understand that
it's easy to be a little defensive when you've got 2 win98 licences
and 1 XP licence that you aren't using and someone *still*
feels it is fair to imply that you're a thief of some kind
(btw: I'm willing to flog the 98 cds to anyone in SA).
In this case, I willingly agreed to the original licence for
Windows 2000. At this moment I'm not amenable to a more restrictive
licence for a product I already own and have paid for. Surely
that is not an unreasonable position to take?
As to the "phoning home" bits - well I certainly cannot
prove it (as I'm not willing to install it) but it is
already widely known that WGA /does/ give the copyright
holder of W2k the ability to stop the software from working
for the owner (the customer). Even microsoft themselves has
acknowledged this ability.
>> I also doubt that microsoft is going to /validate/ my
>> wine install.
> And I seriously doubt that you're using TSVN with wine.
Nope; I'm not using TSVN with anything at all; I already did
say that I cannot install it.
> Last time I
> checked wine wasn't able to run the windows explorer. And there are
> better suited Subversion tools for Linux than TSVN.
What I *am* doing is cross-platform development (fbsd, linux
and win32). The svn c/line tools on the unixes work fine and
I've been using them for the last year or so. The windows
bits are tricky, though (which is why I've considered wine).
The download (as of the last couple of days) for windows binaries
of the svn client from tigris does not work for any svn older than
1.4. The 1.4 version of the windows binaries don't work with my
svn server (1.2.3). The older sources (1.2.3) for svn won't build
on my mingw install (under windows) because apr is not compatible
with mingw (although they say it will build with MSVC 6 or above,
which I don't have and don't intend to purchase anytime soon; the
last windows compiler I've purchased was ver5).
I could just attempt an upgrade on my svn server taking it to
the newest version so that the c/line tools work on win32, but I
see no reason to upgrade software which is barely 3 years old
(newer than this dell I am typing on). The whole idea behind
using an open source source control was to concentrate on
my development and not running the upgrade-mill.
If the older versions are not available anymore for download,
then it all gets a little pointless. If I knew 3 years ago that
I'd need the client for windows, I'd have just downloaded it and
>> What's the best way to proceed in order to use tortoise?
>> Should I rather just choose a free package instead?
> TSVN *is* free. It's GPL. You won't get anything more free than this.
Could I perhaps just rebuild it into an executable installer?
Is there maybe an older version of it that *comes* as an
executable and not as an msi?
Anyway, I'm sorry about the rant. Please accept my humblest
apologies. After consideration, I decided to leave everything
in as it was typed (I sometimes type in anger and then repent
at leisure :-) as I feel that my justification should at least
be archived on the web somewhere - maybe it will stop all these
questions I'm getting from everyone "You pirated it, didn't you,
Thanks for your response.
> oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
Vorbis would've been proud of the choice offered.
For super low premiums, click here http://www.webmail.co.za/dd.pwm
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Sat Oct 14 22:51:02 2006