>> firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
There's another reason: msi installers can be easily added to group
policies and therefore be installed automatically on multiple computers
inside a domain.
>>> 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,
I wasn't calling you a thief. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear on
And you might also have some misconception on the WGA part when trying
to download packages from the MS website: you don't need to install WGA
if you don't want to!
Ok, if you're using IE, then there's an activex control which gets
installed, but that's not the whole WGA (the one which 'phones home')
but a much simpler part which only gets run if the website requires it.
You can use Firefox to go to that page. Then you're told to download a
small exe which you have to run. All that exe does is read your windows
registration number which it then compresses to a smaller number. That
number has then to be copied into an edit box on the website (no, the
exe does *not* install anything - you simply run it once to get that
code you have to enter).
I don't think that's too much of a risk for you.
>> 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.
I don't think so either :)
> 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?
I'm not sure what part is more restrictive for the XP license? The only
thing that XP does is to enforce the license terms in certain ways.
> 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.
Only if the license is not valid. And even then, you can contact MS to
explain your situation. If you have your license from Dell, I'm sure you
won't have a problem.
What concerns me every time I hear that people don't install WGA (or
SP2) is that without it you won't get the security updates anymore. And
that means millions of computers just waiting to be turned into zombies
for the spammers out there.
I just can't see why getting misused by spammers is the lesser of the
'two evils' - I think WGA is way better than the alternatives.
> 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
You can't download earlier versions of the Subversion package anymore?
They're still there and perfectly fine (just tried downloading 1.3.1).
You need to have cookies enabled in your browser for it to work though.
> 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).
FYI: you can't purchase VC6 anymore - at least not from MS. You might be
able to get it e.g. from eBay, but that might also be a risk.
> 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 you don't need the new features of the newer versions, then of course
there's no need to upgrade.
> 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
> kept it.
Here you can find all the previous svn versions. If you have problems
downloading them, you should ask for help on the Subversion mailing list.
> 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?
Sorry, but I have to say no here. Maintaining an installer is a lot of
work, and we have enough to do with the one installer we provide as it is.
But you could also try this one:
and then use the TSVN msi file.
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sun Oct 15 09:09:30 2006