AppBrowser suggestion

[Kingdomcome]

Ive seen a bit of confusion regarding the "Install" and "Mount" buttons in appbrowser as to which one does what and which is preferred or recommended.  I would like to suggest removing the "Mount" button and creating an options menu item to choose whether the extension is mounted or loaded to ram, with the preferred method being selected by default.

[curaga]

Have you by any chance tried appbrowser-cli?

[jpeters]

Ive seen a bit of confusion regarding the "Install" and "Mount" buttons in appbrowser as to which one does what and which is preferred or recommended.  I would like to suggest removing the "Mount" button and creating an options menu item to choose whether the extension is mounted or loaded to ram, with the preferred method being selected by default.

Makes a lot of sense. 

[roberts]

loaded to ram

The correct term is install, as the files are installed to the file system.
When one is using a PPI it is in fact not 'to ram'.

As to one should be preferred over another would be making the decision for the user.

[Guy]

Ive seen a bit of confusion regarding the "Install" and "Mount" buttons in appbrowser as to which one does what and which is preferred or recommended.  I would like to suggest removing the "Mount" button and creating an options menu item to choose whether the extension is mounted or installed to ram, with the preferred method being selected by default.

I respect that different people have different opinions.

I think it is a good idea to make it as easy as possible for new users.

Many new users don't read or understand all of the help pages before installation.

The above method is one way this could be achieved.

Both buttons are actually install, just two different ways of running after installation.

Another idea would be to rename the buttons. For example, Install could be "Install to be run from RAM." The other one, could be "Install to be mounted." This would mean bigger buttons.

Another option would be to put comments on the Appbrowser, with a brief explanation.

The method already suggested is probably the best. Have some way of selecting which method to use, and have one button, "Install."

[tclfan]

Can I just level-set on the terminology we are using now... Please correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand in all the transition from tce+tcz extension types we transitioned to a unified 'tcz only' extensions (which makes a lot of sense) and tcz extensions can be installed in ram if desired, achieving the same as previously with tce extensions...
Taking from this, it looks like the terminology is now:

- Install: It installs in ram from tcz, so achieves what tce was doing previously. Storage partition containing \tce can be unmounted now.
- Mount: It installs not in ram up-front, but as a loopback pointer to tcz, which continues to be stored in storage partition. This storage partiion cannot be unmounted. I needs to be continuously mounted to the system, so this tcz is available when the application is invoked. A significant advantage is ram usage saving, which plays enormous role in this architecture.
- Install optional: Installs on demand extensions stored in \tce\local.  Partition containing \tce must be also mounted for this to work...

I will appreciate any correction to the above...
As huge progress has been achieved in development of the TC modular architecture, the distinction between modes of installation of extensions perhaps can be re-outlined clearly to TC users. Considering a significant difference in the way 'Install' and 'Mount' works with extensions, it makes sense for whatever terminology is adopted if it maintains this distinction in a clear way, like today...

[Kingdomcome]

Curaga: Just checked out appbrowser-cli.  That is exactly the setup I was referring to. Not taking the choice away at all, just removing the possible confusion newcomers might have.
Roberts: I understand your logic behind calling it Install especially in a PPI setup.  But when a newcomer is presented 2 choices, and one of them is Install, I would say that most of them will choose Install simply because they are unsure of what Mount will do.  I do believe that documentation could easily remedy any confusions in any case though.  I will begin work on a wiki entry documenting the current appbrowser setup.

[roberts]

It is not an opionon. It is a fact that the install option does not necessarily installs to ram.

Some use traditional hard drive installations (scatter mode), some use tclocal, PPI mode, with either of these two modes extensions are not installed to ram!

I will say again, install, installs the extension into the file system. If the file system is in ram then it installs to ram, if the file system is located on a persistent store then the extension is installed into such perrsistent storage device.

To change a label or button to indicate 'to ram' would be wrong!

Just as tces were recommended for scatter mode, and PPI because they were installed, tczs using the install option are recommended. Mounting a tcz is not recommeded for scatter mode or PPI, as the symlinks are written to the persistent filesystem.

If you use a PPR, which is recommended, you have the choice of install or mount.

Lets not be blind to the other operating modes.

[tclfan]

It is not an opionon. It is a fact that the install option does not necessarily installs to ram.
Some use traditional hard drive installations (scatter mode), some use tclocal, PPI mode, with either of these two modes extensions are not installed to ram!
I will say again, install, installs the extension into the file system. If the file system is in ram then it installs to ram, if the file system is located on a persistent store then the extension is installed into such perrsistent storage device.
To change a label or button to indicate 'to ram' would be wrong!
.....
If you use a PPR, which is recommended, you have the choice of install or mount.Lets not be blind to the other operating modes.

As this distinctions is therefore clearly emphasized as well as the importance of keeping them clearly separate, could we perhaps document the advantages and implications of using one vs. the other...
E.g. running completely in ram, with unmouted \tce usb vs. keeping it mounted, as symlinks require...

[bigpcman]

It is not an opionon. It is a fact that the install option does not necessarily installs to ram.

Some use traditional hard drive installations (scatter mode), some use tclocal, PPI mode, with either of these two modes extensions are not installed to ram!

I will say again, install, installs the extension into the file system. If the file system is in ram then it installs to ram, if the file system is located on a persistent store then the extension is installed into such perrsistent storage device.

To change a label or button to indicate 'to ram' would be wrong!

Just as tces were recommended for scatter mode, and PPI because they were installed, tczs using the install option are recommended. Mounting a tcz is not recommeded for scatter mode or PPI, as the symlinks are written to the persistent filesystem.

If you use a PPR, which is recommended, you have the choice of install or mount.

Lets not be blind to the other operating modes.

Seems to me that the explanations required for "install" and "mount" are way beyond menu items. A simple solution would be to add a help button which would provide all the information that Robert has mentioned. I do agree a new user will probably not be sure what mount does and will use install.

[jur]

I must be slow. Forgive me for piping up here ...

Reading up lots about unstall vs mount - I thought I understood it but this thread has again confused me...

Install: Install to the file system as per roberts post above (may I suggest the help words 'conventional mode'?).
Mount: put the tcz file in tce and link to it. On clicking the link, the file is dynamically unzipped from tce and run? And closing the app returns to the state before opening that app?

If this is so, then I am not sure what the advantage of install is - I don't notice a difference in performance between the 2, both runnung from a flash drive and from the hard drive. In fact I like the idea of mounting because it seems to be a portable way of doing things, right?

[tclfan]

I must be slow. Forgive me for piping up here ...
Reading up lots about unstall vs mount - I thought I understood it but this thread has again confused me...
Install: Install to the file system as per roberts post above (may I suggest the help words 'conventional mode'?).
Mount: put the tcz file in tce and link to it. On clicking the link, the file is dynamically unzipped from tce and run? And closing the app returns to the state before opening that app?
If this is so, then I am not sure what the advantage of install is - I don't notice a difference in performance between the 2, both runnung from a flash drive and from the hard drive. In fact I like the idea of mounting because it seems to be a portable way of doing things, right?

It appears to me that you run in PPR mode from RAM in both cases so you do not see any performance difference.
Install installs to the file system and in PPR mode the entire file system is in RAM.
Mount creates a symlink to the application, which is in storage. When this application is invoked to execute, then it loads in memory and executes. After closing application it does not return, that means it does not get deleted from memory and does not change the original tcz. This is the beauty... It always boots a pristine system, no corruption or 'system rot'...
Others can explain this better than I and correct me if I am wrong on anything above...

[Guy]

The only time you are likely to notice a significant performance difference is if you have a drive which reads slowly, for example, if you are running from a cd. You would need to make a cd with extensions for this to be applicable.

Then install would take longer when starting the operating system, and mount would take longer when starting individual programs.

As hard drives and usb drives read faster, the difference is not noticable.

As mount can run more programs with the same amount of ram, it is ideal for most people.

[tclfan]

Just to add, when using mount, the storage device containing \tce must be mounted for the duration of the session, while when applications are installed, this device (e.g. usb) can be unmounted (usb taken out).

[bmarkus]

As hard drives and usb drives read faster, the difference is not noticable.

Keep in mind hard disk drives are much fasters than USB sticks.

As mount can run more programs with the same amount of ram, it is ideal for most people.

Why is it ideal just because mount can run more programs? If you are on an average today's machine RAM is not a factor. Also, consider the 255 max loop device limit. In my opinion statement above is not correct.