BIN files not runnable

Talk about everything.
ripper
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 14:01

BIN files not runnable

Postby ripper » Sun Apr 18, 2010 14:46

BIN files are not runnable any more on modern Linux distributions (Ubuntu 9.10 and 10.04 tested). At least not from Nautilus, you can still of course use the terminal. But that increases the barriers for new Linux users. Renaming those files to RUN suffix works perfect. Tested on Glest installer.

So, is there any reason so that you don't rename all BIN files you have on your web to RUN files? I suggest it.

rettichschnidi
liflg member
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:07
Location: CH

Postby rettichschnidi » Sun Apr 18, 2010 17:45

Thank you for your input.

We already changed this a few weeks ago with the new installers (Airline Tycoon and the Alien vs. Predator installer do not have a suffix). We'll also rename the old .run installer, but we won't name them .run, since this would be confusing.

ripper
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 14:01

Postby ripper » Sun Apr 18, 2010 18:48

rettichschnidi wrote:We'll also rename the old .run installer

You mean the .bin installer... Is there any ETA for that (especially for Glest)? I'm writing a book where I reference your site and that would simplify things a little.

And yes, I have noticed that some of the installers don't have suffix. I supposed it's bug. What is the rationale for that? I think it's pretty confusing from end-user point of view. RUN suffix at least tells them to make the file executable and run it. No suffix tells nothing. And users don't usually see files without suffix.

rettichschnidi
liflg member
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:07
Location: CH

Postby rettichschnidi » Sun Apr 18, 2010 19:30

ripper wrote:You mean the .bin installer...

Yes, of course. The .run-ones will die out anyway... sooner or later. We wont touch them.
ripper wrote:Is there any ETA for that (especially for Glest)? I'm writing a book where I reference your site and that would simplify things a little.

Now you made me wondering: What book are you writing?

Glest: No, sorry. When do you want to finish your writing? I guess we can prioritize this work if needed.
ripper wrote:And yes, I have noticed that some of the installers don't have suffix. I supposed it's bug. What is the rationale for that? I think it's pretty confusing from end-user point of view. RUN suffix at least tells them to make the file executable and run it. No suffix tells nothing. And users don't usually see files without suffix.

No, its not a bug. Binaries usually do not have any suffix at all under Linux/Unix (how many .exe/.run/.bin files do you find under /usr/bin/ ?)

And a Linuxuser who does not know that files he want to execute have to have the x bit is lost* anyway, with or without .run.

*: he can get help here :)

ripper
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 14:01

Postby ripper » Sun Apr 18, 2010 20:00

I'm writing a User's Guide to Ubuntu 10.04, Czech version. Your site will be mentioned in the Games section, because it provides installers for many favorite commercial games. I'm writing some demonstration of it, but the Loki installers are horribly buggy, especially when doing non-root install. Therefore I wanted to use some with Mojosetup, but it has .bin suffix (just a minor issue compared to Loki issues, but still...). If you could rename Glest from .bin to .run (or suffixless) in a week, it would help me a little. But no big deal if you can't.

As for the suffix/no suffix question, I know that Linux binaries don't have usually suffix. But on the other hand, installers mostly do have one. Because you want to know this the *the file* you want to run. Of course it is mainly done because of the non-experienced users, but that's fine. Imagine when I can instruct users who want to install a commercial game that they should unpack an archive (not your case, you don't provide archives, but generally) and find a file ending with .run or .sh. Simple. But imagine I tell them there's no suffix. Very often they find an INSTALL file, without suffix, but it's not an installer, but a text file with instructions. Confusing. Not *as* easy as the first case.

Also it seems to me that there are just benefits in using RUN suffix over no suffix - easy identification what file to run. But if you look at it vice versa - what's the benefit of no extension over RUN extension? I don't see any. It is not even the "true unix way", because in the true unix way, suffixes don't matter, so an executable file can easily have a suffix, it just doesn't matter. So I don't really get why you prefer them.

Of course my point of view is the point of view of a guide author meant for newbies users. You may see it differently. How?

rettichschnidi
liflg member
Posts: 218
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:07
Location: CH

Postby rettichschnidi » Sun Apr 18, 2010 21:02

ripper wrote:If you could rename Glest from .bin to .run (or suffixless) in a week, it would help me a little. But no big deal if you can't.

Change in plan!

I just posted (your critism was really motivating :) ) this suffix-thing on the Mojosetup list. There was a really strong point for not going with suffix-less installers (webservers), and someone recommended *.mojo.run which is my favourite suffix so far.
If you wanna bring in your opinion, please join: http://icculus.org/mailman/listinfo/mojosetup
ripper wrote:As for the suffix/no suffix question, I know that Linux binaries don't have usually suffix. But on the other hand, installers mostly do have one. Because you want to know this the *the file* you want to run. Of course it is mainly done because of the non-experienced users, but that's fine. Imagine when I can instruct users who want to install a commercial game that they should unpack an archive (not your case, you don't provide archives, but generally) and find a file ending with .run or .sh. Simple. But imagine I tell them there's no suffix. Very often they find an INSTALL file, without suffix, but it's not an installer, but a text file with instructions. Confusing. Not *as* easy as the first case.

OK, I see your point. I'm not against a suffix. I just do not wanna have a .run or .bin one.
ripper wrote:Also it seems to me that there are just benefits in using RUN suffix over no suffix - easy identification what file to run. But if you look at it vice versa - what's the benefit of no extension over RUN extension? I don't see any. It is not even the "true unix way", because in the true unix way, suffixes don't matter, so an executable file can easily have a suffix, it just doesn't matter. So I don't really get why you prefer them.

I preferred no suffix over .run because our "old" loki-installers hat this suffix and we told many people to use sh to execute it. Of course this will fail badly when trying to do it with a binary file.
Example: viewtopic.php?p=5288#5288
So its a lot easier for us to use another suffix - just not run or bin.
ripper wrote:Of course my point of view is the point of view of a guide author meant for newbies users. You may see it differently. How?

I think we have the same goal.
If you want to share your thoughts with many more mojosetup-users (including the devs) I recommend you to join the mojosetup list. I and kratz00 are also there.

ripper
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 14:01

Postby ripper » Sun Apr 18, 2010 21:59

*.mojo.run seems like a very good solution, I like it. Looking forward to the new suffix ;)


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests