Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

daringfireball.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 28 posts

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#11

Post by modeless »

bobius wrote: post #6

On launch, your application can check to see what directory it's in. If the directory is mounted as the same name as the .dmg image you shipped, then you could prompt the user. "You appear to be running this application from a disk image. This will make the application run slower. You should copy the application to your Application Folder. Do you want to move it there now automatically Y/N/don't show this again." or…

Let's combine this with the zip file approach. Your app is distributed as a zip file containing only the app folder. Safari unzips it automatically, then the user double-clicks your app icon. Your app notices it's in the "Downloads" directory and asks "Would you like to install me to the Applications folder?" If so, the move is done visually by opening two finder windows and literally moving the app icon as if it was being dragged. Afterward the Applications folder remains open displaying the app icon in case the user wants to drag it to the dock.

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#12

Post by catch23 »

wmf wrote: post #3
bkudria wrote: post #2

With apt-get.

If you have one repository you've just created a monopoly. If you have multiple repositories (probably one per app) then you've just shifted the problem to installing new repositories.

What's wrong with multiple repositories? It should be easy to add new ones. There's multiple places to get debian packages, there's the main packages, non-free, backports, and other homebrew ones like mythtv etc. It's as easy as adding a line into a text file, but I'm sure the interface could be better... maybe even something integrated with the browser.

Maybe github & sourceforge has a mac repository. So you'd have the default one from apple, plus any open source apps from github & sourceforge. Individual developers who just publish code on github wouldn't need to setup their own repository. In a way, it's kind of how the ruby community distributes their packages.

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#13

Post by burke »

atlbeer wrote: post #4

Simple proposal.. How about a zipping an application and merely naming it .appz (or just plain zip) The only reason why Mac application can't be distributed like Windows .exe files is that Mac applications are actually directories. Excluding .pkg installers 99.99% of the time the .dmg file is merely just a container for the single .app directory. Safari automatically unpacks .zip files by default on download. Where's…

This would be a huge improvement, in my opinion. The only thing I would change is to rename .appz to .zapp :P

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#15

Post by yason »

atlbeer wrote: post #4

Simple proposal.. How about a zipping an application and merely naming it .appz (or just plain zip) The only reason why Mac application can't be distributed like Windows .exe files is that Mac applications are actually directories. Excluding .pkg installers 99.99% of the time the .dmg file is merely just a container for the single .app directory. Safari automatically unpacks .zip files by default on download. Where's…

So, leeching your appz directly will cause no need for dmg?

(-:

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#17

Post by blasdel »

atlbeer wrote: post #4

Simple proposal.. How about a zipping an application and merely naming it .appz (or just plain zip) The only reason why Mac application can't be distributed like Windows .exe files is that Mac applications are actually directories. Excluding .pkg installers 99.99% of the time the .dmg file is merely just a container for the single .app directory. Safari automatically unpacks .zip files by default on download. Where's…

This is already implemented on the iPhone.

The main reason they haven't done it on OS X is that it would be completely backwards-incompatible. They should have done it in Snow Leopard (an easy choice if your app uses GC), but if they did they didn't tell anyone. Instead they added optional zip/deflate compression to HFS, and used it for most of the system files.

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#18

Post by blasdel »

catch23 wrote: post #12
wmf wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have one repository you've just created a monopoly. If you have multiple repositories (probably one per app) then you've just shifted the problem to installing new repositories.

What's wrong with multiple repositories? It should be easy to add new ones. There's multiple places to get debian packages, there's the main packages, non-free, backports, and other homebrew ones like mythtv etc. It's as easy as adding a line into a text file, but I'm sure the interface could be better... maybe even something integrated with the browser. Maybe github & sourceforge has a mac repository. So you'd have…

Freetard wankery is the only reason there is more than one place to get debian packages.

Fuck debian-legal. I hope their heads fall off.

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#19

Post by blasdel »

burke wrote: post #13
atlbeer wrote: post #4

Simple proposal.. How about a zipping an application and merely naming it .appz (or just plain zip) The only reason why Mac application can't be distributed like Windows .exe files is that Mac applications are actually directories. Excluding .pkg installers 99.99% of the time the .dmg file is merely just a container for the single .app directory. Safari automatically unpacks .zip files by default on download. Where's…

This would be a huge improvement, in my opinion. The only thing I would change is to rename .appz to .zapp :P

Why do they need to be named differently at all? One is a directory, the other a file -- no ambiguity.

The Finder and LaunchServices are the only bits of code that care anyway.

Re: How Should Mac Apps Be Distributed?

#20

Post by pieter »

The problem isn't the dragging to the application folder itself. I've seen my mother do this and it went fine.

He problem is that the application isn't moved, it is copied. After putting a copy in the Applications folder, she just drags the application from the disk image to the dock. Now she has two copies, and uses the slower one in the disk image. Sometimes she even drags the disk image to the Application folder too. It's all very confusing

I agree that the disk image system is very confusing for the casual user. The zips seem to give a much nicer interface

Post reply on HN