70 replies to this topic

[IceBlackIce]

I dont consider myself a developer or a programmer, im not even a Winbuilder user for various reasons...overly complex, poor stability, gui inconsistency and proprietary plugin file.

I do consider myself a techsavvy user and make my own wims and bootdisks using batches and cant grasp the concept of Winbuilder atm...it can download projects, but there isnt a way to create one project from scratch without uploading somewhere?

It can create scripts but the plugin files need to be embebed in the script itself (wich is a omg why?? decision imho) creating overly complex script file size, structure and from what i saw from a quick glance of it no standard between script files, if i want to edit some script and "save as"...no can do, I need to save it or make a copy of the original if i want, if i want to create one script i can but need to put it or associate it to a project...why? Lets say ie I need to copy some files in all my projects...why would i need a copy of the same script in all projects folders when in a batch all it takes is a line of code to call that copy command? I create a script and edit only the name of it and save it to a project...message box saying that i need to close the tools screen and refresh...ok i close the tools screen and...where are the refresh button? Close the program, start again...my script still not there...go to the project folder and yeah i can see my script but the program for whatever reason doesnt show my script...It probably is right, because the script does nothing or whatever but at least let me know why it doesnt do anything or some error when saving saying that is not a valid script file...

From what I saw theres a new program in design coded in Java to make it architecture portable but who does that? How are we going to load a registry hive from an android OS? And more important who will use this on anything other than a Windows? Why try to implement functions that are already out there and work and are supported by Microsoft (this is more specific to the wim files part)

So from my point of view a redesign is not enough to "save" this project, the whole thing needs to be rethought and reworked...the plugin architechure, the project meaning...in whole what is the main goal of the program and go from there...ofc that is a huge task for just a person, the whole community should come join in the discussion and create standards for projects and plugins and after having that sorted out start to create a program that manages projects and plugins to make it as simple and as fast as possible.

[pscEx]

@Wonko,

Please try to replace in your above post "WinBuilder" by "command.exe".

Do you agree to the resulting description?

Peter

[betrand]

Speaking from a User (not often) point of view, I don't know much abt the scripts,
but a gui a la Windows install, ie: Standard, minimal, custom... ?

[Wonko the Sane]

@Wonko,

Please try to replace in your above post "WinBuilder" by "command.exe".

Do you agree to the resulting description?

Sorry, Peter, I don't get it .
There are things called names/words, that you put one after the other (adding some verbs, adjectives, etc.) in order to form sentences when you want to express your ideas, opinions, etc.
Don't worry, you can spend some time in forming a few ones of them sentences, so that I (and possibly other people) can understand what the heck you mean .

WB projects are for building ones own OS.
Only very, very dumb people believe, that one can build a OS or a rocket to the moon, without any prior knowledge.

btw. I still like to know, how you want to create a project, with all the options any user could ever want, where people can blindly click around, swap in scripts from whatever source, modify existing scripts and all that, while still getting not only a working OS, but the OS they wanted, in the end.

If you can explain, how to do that, something all my years in IT tell me is impossible, then i create a project like that!

Boy do I hate this conversations between deaf people.
I just finished to write how IMHO it is IMPOSSIBLE to create such a thing BUT that NONETHELESS we can try to simplify and more generally make more convenient to the end user the usage of the tool (that remains complex) and make the needed learning less difficult.
In any case the first thing that should be stopped is keeping on saying that using Winbuilder is "easy" AND conveying the currently given FALSE impression that a newbie can actually build anything working without spending hours in frustrating attempts (unless a pre-set or "reduced option" project is chosen).

@IceBlackIce
From what you wrote you are evidently not at all familiar with Winbuilder, as an example there is NO *need* whatsoever to embed *anything* in a .script (though most developers use - senselessly - this approach) and noone (at least in his right mind) ever thought of loading a Registry hive in an Android OS, but your report is anyway interesting because though seemimgly - at least partially - being about "different" behaviours of Winbuilder from "normal" apps and motivated by your lack (yet ) of knowledge of the tool, you express well the kind of difficulties that a new user will find.



Wonko

[pscEx]

Sorry, Peter, I don't get it .
There are things called names/words, that you put one after the other (adding some verbs, adjectives, etc.) in order to form sentences when you want to express your ideas, opinions, etc.
Don't worry, you can spend some time in forming a few ones of them sentences, so that I (and possibly other people) can understand what the heck you mean .

In WinBuilder command.exe ... what you actually get is "relative power with complexity AND troublesome correction of problems", i.e. when you push the stupid button run the stupid batch you NEVER get what you want at first attempt, in some cases you get it after several attempts, in some cases you get it after having learned the whole stuff and actually modified .scripts .cmd / .bat

Peter

[sbaeder]

In any case the first thing that should be stopped is keeping on saying that using Winbuilder is "easy" AND conveying the currently given FALSE impression that a newbie can actually build anything working without spending hours in frustrating attempts (unless a pre-set or "reduced option" project is chosen).

This just enforces my comment before. WinBuilder is just the TOOL...The projects are what builds the PE. And of course as has been said, the more WIDE the set of choices, the more likely it is to be complicated.

For a very narrowly defined scope - i.e. build a stand-alone bootable PE with just X, Y, and Z - a project can easily accomplish this - doesn't matter what tool(s) are used to deliver that to the end user.

Anyway - if there is a point to this discussion, I seem to have lost what it is...


Scott

[pscEx]

This just enforces my comment before. WinBuilder is just the TOOL...The projects are what builds the PE. And of course as has been said, the more WIDE the set of choices, the more likely it is to be complicated.

For a very narrowly defined scope - i.e. build a stand-alone bootable PE with just X, Y, and Z - a project can easily accomplish this - doesn't matter what tool(s) are used to deliver that to the end user.

Anyway - if there is a point to this discussion, I seem to have lost what it is...


Scott

Scott, you are one of the very few people understanding the difference between "WinBuilder" (batch processor) and "WinBuilder project" (collection of scripts made by one or several authors)
And there are two classes of authors:

• Options only for "What really must be be defined by the user"
• As more options a script has, as "better" is it, because it is nearly "universal"

Wonko did not get it, but the sence behind my "command" post has been that the user problems depend on complexity and choice suggestions, in WinBuilder (several 1000 statements containing) projects as well as in simple *.cmd with several thousand statements.

Peter

[IceBlackIce]

No idea why I cant quote, should be permissions issue...anyway...

@Wonko the Sane

@IceBlackIce
From what you wrote you are evidently not at all familiar with Winbuilder, as an example there is NO *need* whatsoever to embed *anything* in a .script (though most developers use - senselessly - this approach) and noone (at least in his right mind) ever thought of loading a Registry hive in an Android OS, but your report is anyway interesting because though seemimgly - at least partially - being about "different" behaviours of Winbuilder from "normal" apps and motivated by your lack (yet ) of knowledge of the tool, you express well the kind of difficulties that a new user will find.

Yes you are right...im not at all familiar with Winbuilder but from what i saw almost every script embebed files into it...if not only to make a lil nice icon next to it...to continue with scripts ranting...there are scripts with over 3MB and 1000 lines that all they do is copy some files and create some shortcuts does this make any sense to you guys? The scripts should never have files embebed and in my opinion they should never have commands in them, the program should always parse the script files and take the info it needs to do the commands and not have script 1 load a registry and put some keys just to have script 2 load the registry another time to put some other keys.

About the Android loading a registry hive how will that be prevented? Should the user know which scripts have registry manipulations and disable them ? Should the program load all the scripts in memory and disable them by plataform? So imagine that the project i want to create will have registry manipulation what should i do then ? Wait until im on the pc? Wasnt the point of creating a multi plataform app to make it work in all platafforms? Or maybe there will be another function in the program to make the registry manipulation work

[MedEvil]

Sorry, Peter, I don't get it

He means, that you can replace in your text Winbuilder with CMD and the statement would be just as right / wrong.

Boy do I hate this conversations between deaf people.

And I!

I just finished to write how IMHO it is IMPOSSIBLE to create such a thing BUT that NONETHELESS we can try to simplify and more generally make more convenient to the end user the usage of the tool (that remains complex) and make the needed learning less difficult.

It's IMPOSSIBLE, but others (not you) should try NONETHELESS.
Why do you always try, to burn other people time, as if there were no tomorrow?
If something is impossible, it is futile to try anyway!!!

In any case the first thing that should be stopped is keeping on saying that using Winbuilder is "easy" AND conveying the currently given FALSE impression that a newbie can actually build anything working without spending hours in frustrating attempts (unless a pre-set or "reduced option" project is chosen).

WB (projects) is easy to use and does create a working PE on the first run!
As long as people stay away from the options and press just play! Which is exactly, what they would get, with any other easy builder program, we could ever come up with.

One can eighter choose for oneself, in which case, one nneds a lot of knowledge, to make good choices.
Or one can let other people choose for one, which is way simpler and does not require any knowledge. But also does not get one, what one wants, but just what the other person thinks, one should want.

Simpler, less learning required, means always more restrictions. More restrictions means less freedom of choice!

Restrictions and freedom of choice are diametrically opposed and hence can not be unified.
So any suggestion, that it can be done, should be done or at least should be tryed, are completely unlogical and out of touch with reality.


btw. It is really no trouble at all, for any project maintainer to hide all scripts and their options in the treeview and instead of presenting a complicated log on Error, to pop up a nice message reading "Your source sucks, get a original one from M$"

[Wonko the Sane]

@pscEx
Just for the record, I understood this long before you did, you remember the posts about Mr.Ford, etc?
Just in case:
http://reboot.pro/12547/#entry109801

Of course it makes no sense quoting PARTIALLY my post, noone ever said that "command.exe" (whatever it is) is easy and that can work by a simple pushbutton.

I guess we are going (again) over the usual set of misunderstandings, since everything is deja-vu, I see no sense in going over them again and again, I am really tired to have to repeat the same things again and again every few months/years .

[pscEx]

recorded

Peter

[MedEvil]

Yes you are right...im not at all familiar with Winbuilder but from what i saw almost every script embebed files into it...if not only to make a lil nice icon next to it...

The files are embedded so people, who are not tech sawy will not constantly come whining, that they can't use script X, because the program is missing or they don't know, where to get it, how to extract it, how to patch it.

to continue with scripts ranting...there are scripts with over 3MB and 1000 lines that all they do is copy some files and create some shortcuts does this make any sense to you guys?

The scripts should never have files embebed and in my opinion they should never have commands in them, the program should always parse the script files and take the info it needs to do the commands

Cool, i always wanted one of those batches, which do tons of cool stuff without requiring commands!

and not have script 1 load a registry and put some keys just to have script 2 load the registry another time to put some other keys.

Now i'm really anxious to learn, how you add entries into a offline registry without loading it first.

[Wonko the Sane]

Now i'm really anxious to learn, how you add entries into a offline registry without loading it first.

I can tell you that for free (example):
http://reboot.pro/in...showtopic=11212
http://reboot.pro/11312/


Wonko

[IceBlackIce]

The files are embedded so people, who are not tech sawy will not constantly come whining, that they can't use script X, because the program is missing or they don't know, where to get it, how to extract it, how to patch it.

So having the .script file be a renamed zip file, and have the program autoload a simple command/configuration file inside the .script file is not a better option? Instead of having to rely on a single program to open and edit the script file and having hundreds of lines which have nothing to do with the script itself but are its resources? Or instead of having the files embebed in the .script file have a url to have winbuilder download it

On another note i dont even know why most programs arent a singe huge file with its components embebed into it...if it makes sense here it should be applied elsewhere

Cool, i always wanted one of those batches, which do tons of cool stuff without requiring commands!

The script should have function calls done by the winbuilder and not the have winbuilder have scripts making commands...ie if a script has to copy files it should be something like

[filecopy]
file,source,destiny

and have the winbuilder copy the files.

Now i'm really anxious to learn, how you add entries into a offline registry without loading it first.

Then you should be anxious about the new version that will be able to do it from android or from Cloud OS

and not have script 1 load a registry and put some keys just to have script 2 load the registry another time to put some other keys.

Since you are a .script developer, and i could learn a lot from you regarding .scripts and winbuilder, i would like to know what would be faster and have better standardization

Situation 1:

Script 1 has:

RegHiveLoad,"WB-software","%TargetDir%\i386\system32\config\software"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.aac","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.ac3","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.avi","","AVIFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.dts","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.divx","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.dv","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.mov","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.mp4","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.mpg","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.mpeg","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.mpeg1","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.mpeg2","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.mpeg4","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.ogg","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.ogm","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.ps","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.qt","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.rm","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.ts","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.vob","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\.wmv","","MediaFile"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\AVIFile","","Video Clip"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x2,"WB-software\Classes\AVIFile\DefaultIcon","","#$pSystemDrive#$p\%WorkDir%\%ExeFolder%\%ExeName%,0"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\AVIFile\shell","","open"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x2,"WB-software\Classes\AVIFile\shell\open\command","","#$pSystemDrive#$p\%WorkDir%\%ExeFolder%\%ExeName%#$s#$q%1#$q"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\MediaFile","","Media File"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x2,"WB-software\Classes\MediaFile\DefaultIcon","","#$pSystemDrive#$p\%WorkDir%\%ExeFolder%\%ExeName%,0"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"WB-software\Classes\MediaFile\shell","","open"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x2,"WB-software\Classes\MediaFile\shell\open\command","","#$pSystemDrive#$p\%WorkDir%\%ExeFolder%\%ExeName%#$s#$q%1#$q"

RegHiveUnLoad,"WB-software"

Script 2 has:

RegHiveLoad,Tmp_software,%TargetDir%\i386\System32\Config\software

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Fonts","MS Sans Serif 8,10,12,14,18,24 (VGA res)","SSERIFE.FON"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Fonts","MS Serif 8,10,12,14,18,24 (VGA res)","SERIFE.FON"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Fonts","Small Fonts (VGA res)","SMALLE.FON"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\CLSID\{43A8F463-4222-11d2-B641-006097DF5BD4}","","Shell Name Space ListView"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x2,"Tmp_software\Classes\CLSID\{43A8F463-4222-11d2-B641-006097DF5BD4}\InProcServer32","","#$pSystemRoot#$p\System32\shdocvw.dll"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\CLSID\{43A8F463-4222-11d2-B641-006097DF5BD4}\InProcServer32","ThreadingModel","Apartment"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\CLSID\{603D3800-BD81-11d0-A3A5-00C04FD706EC}","","Background Task Scheduler"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x2,"Tmp_software\Classes\CLSID\{603D3800-BD81-11d0-A3A5-00C04FD706EC}\InProcServer32","","#$pSystemRoot#$p\System32\browseui.dll"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\CLSID\{603D3800-BD81-11d0-A3A5-00C04FD706EC}\InProcServer32","ThreadingModel","Apartment"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}","","Shell Automation Service"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x2,"Tmp_software\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}\InProcServer32","","#$pSystemRoot#$p\system32\SHELL32.dll"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}\InProcServer32","ThreadingModel","Apartment"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}\ProgID","","Shell.Application.1"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}\TypeLib","","{50a7e9b0-70ef-11d1-b75a-00a0c90564fe}"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}\Version","","1.1"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}\VersionIndependentProgID","","Shell.Application"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\Shell.Application","","Shell Automation Service"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\Shell.Application\CLSID","","{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\Shell.Application\CurVer","","Shell.Application.1"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\Shell.Application.1","","Shell Automation Service"

RegWrite,HKLM,0x1,"Tmp_software\Classes\Shell.Application.1\CLSID","","{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}"

If,ExistFile,"%TargetDir%\i386\system32\xpeinit.exe",Run,%ScriptFile%,XPESC

RegHiveUnLoad,Tmp_software

Situation 2:

Script 1 has:

[regadd software]

\Classes\.aac","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.ac3","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.avi","","AVIFile"

\Classes\.dts","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.divx","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.dv","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.mov","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.mp4","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.mpg","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.mpeg","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.mpeg1","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.mpeg2","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.mpeg4","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.ogg","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.ogm","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.ps","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.qt","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.rm","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.ts","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.vob","","MediaFile"

\Classes\.wmv","","MediaFile"

\Classes\AVIFile","","Video Clip"

\Classes\AVIFile\DefaultIcon","","#$pSystemDrive#$p\%WorkDir%\%ExeFolder%\%ExeName%,0"

\Classes\AVIFile\shell","","open"

\Classes\AVIFile\shell\open\command","","#$pSystemDrive#$p\%WorkDir%\%ExeFolder%\%ExeName%#$s#$q%1#$q"

\Classes\MediaFile","","Media File"

\Classes\MediaFile\DefaultIcon","","#$pSystemDrive#$p\%WorkDir%\%ExeFolder%\%ExeName%,0"

\Classes\MediaFile\shell","","open"

\Classes\MediaFile\shell\open\command","","#$pSystemDrive#$p\%WorkDir%\%ExeFolder%\%ExeName%#$s#$q%1#$q"

Script 2 has:

[regadd software]

\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Fonts","MS Sans Serif 8,10,12,14,18,24 (VGA res)","SSERIFE.FON"

\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Fonts","MS Serif 8,10,12,14,18,24 (VGA res)","SERIFE.FON"

\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Fonts","Small Fonts (VGA res)","SMALLE.FON"

\Classes\CLSID\{43A8F463-4222-11d2-B641-006097DF5BD4}","","Shell Name Space ListView"

\Classes\CLSID\{43A8F463-4222-11d2-B641-006097DF5BD4}\InProcServer32","","#$pSystemRoot#$p\System32\shdocvw.dll"

\Classes\CLSID\{43A8F463-4222-11d2-B641-006097DF5BD4}\InProcServer32","ThreadingModel","Apartment"

\Classes\CLSID\{603D3800-BD81-11d0-A3A5-00C04FD706EC}","","Background Task Scheduler"

\Classes\CLSID\{603D3800-BD81-11d0-A3A5-00C04FD706EC}\InProcServer32","","#$pSystemRoot#$p\System32\browseui.dll"

\Classes\CLSID\{603D3800-BD81-11d0-A3A5-00C04FD706EC}\InProcServer32","ThreadingModel","Apartment"

\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}","","Shell Automation Service"

\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}\InProcServer32","","#$pSystemRoot#$p\system32\SHELL32.dll"

\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}\InProcServer32","ThreadingModel","Apartment"

\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}\ProgID","","Shell.Application.1"

\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}\TypeLib","","{50a7e9b0-70ef-11d1-b75a-00a0c90564fe}"

\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}\Version","","1.1"

\Classes\CLSID\{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}\VersionIndependentProgID","","Shell.Application"

\Classes\Shell.Application","","Shell Automation Service"

\Classes\Shell.Application\CLSID","","{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}"

\Classes\Shell.Application\CurVer","","Shell.Application.1"

\Classes\Shell.Application.1","","Shell Automation Service"

\Classes\Shell.Application.1\CLSID","","{13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000}"

The program would have the defition of the hive location to write and after having the scripts parsed the program could on-the-fly group all registry operations and instead of loading/unloading hives X-times would load each different hive just once and make all manipulations...this makes the better sense to me but I could be wrong, im not a programmer nor a developer

[pscEx]

Instead of having to rely on a single program to open and edit the script file and having hundreds of lines which have nothing to do with the script itself but are its resources? Or instead of having the files embebed in the .script file have a url to have winbuilder download it

On another note i dont even know why most programs arent a singe huge file with its components embebed into it...if it makes sense here it should be applied elsewhere

As explained above, there is a big difference between "WinBuilder" and "Projects to be built by WinBuilder".
To attach a several magabytes file to a script, is one of the functions WinBuilder OFFERS. Nobody is forced to use this function.
The script / project aurthor decides how to handle needed files. It can be an (intelligent "only if not exists") download, or an attachement to ???, or whatelse.
If a script / project author wants to have that zipped / preconfigurated file (as you suggested), he may implement.

Your experience seems to be based on a certain project.
My latest project, multiPE, e.g. does not include megabytes of files inside the scripts.
Only one script contains an attached executable. That is that one which manages all the attachements.

As usual, scripts developed by different developers, are "good" and "less good" scripts.
A "less good" project / script is not a reason to judge WinBuilder to be bad (As known, WinBuilder is a batcher w/o own PE-Building functions. It just processes a series of scripts).

So having the .script file be a renamed zip file, and have the program autoload a simple command/configuration file inside the .script file is not a better option?

WinBuilder supports that.
But right now none of the project authors have had the idea to do so.

I suggest, that you propose in the various project topics. To complain WinBuilder does not bring the wanted solution.

To your registry question:
Looks like you want to decease the 4 days development / debug time of a new script to 3 days and 23 hours! The developer saves input of some text.
I did not measure, but I do not think that your method would bring build time advantages. It can only bring some script writing time advantage. And that is not relevant for the final user

In the "current" version WinBuilder has to replace a %Variable% (binary search, usually about 6 / 7 accesses)
In your idea WinBuilder has to look for the current reg key and prepend to the RegWrite.



Peter

[patpat]

@Wonko the Sane
>The use of one program/compiler/language..
You describe the problem very well, I agree winbuilder is not easy at all, when I was coding Serva I needed to create many PEs I try winbuilder once and I erase it w/o completing the first build; I never came back.
Winbuilder is neither conceived for the final user (it’s a mess) nor for the developer (it’s also a mess); can someone tell me why winbuilder does not use a regular scripting language like Java or Lua ??

@MedEvil
>Options increase complexity and complexity increases the required knowledge for operation...
I agree with wonko here; I think a good design have options but do not expose them to the ones that do not know wht to do with them.

>Only very, very dumb people believe, that one can build a OS or a rocket to the moon, without any prior knowledge.
good encapsulation helps a lot; (Just as an example and not the best one) I have read hundreds of how to on net booting and they were all for the advanced techies with hundreds of options; I coded Serva in a way that let you install all the OSs you want and the user “single” choice is just the TFTP root directory… The user that wants to build a basic PE doesn’t need 400 options the coder has to decide for the user. The user that wants to change things surely will know how …


@IceBlackIce
> How are we going to load a registry hive from an android OS?
well... well... it is not a priority now...

>And more important who will use this on anything other than a Windows?
cell phones are the future then we need to run everything on cell phones….

>The scripts should never have files embebed
I agree why on earth there are scripts with binary files coded ASCII ??? what the heck is that??


@pscEX
>Scott, you are one of the very few people understanding the difference between "WinBuilder" (batch processor) and "WinBuilder project" (collection of scripts made by one or several authors)
This is something that winbuilder design should've done fut it failed...

>The files are embedded so people, who are not tech sawy will not constantly come whining, that they can't use script X, because the program is missing or they don't know, where to get it, how to extract it, how to patch it.
but why on earth they get the binary ASCII coded, why not just a zip or cab file similar to an Android app or an OSX application file??? adding flexibility on this point is also bad design...

[Wonko the Sane]

Winbuilder is neither conceived for the final user (it’s a mess) nor for the developer (it’s also a mess); can someone tell me why winbuilder does not use a regular scripting language like Java or Lua ??

You seem to forget HOW exactly Batcher Opernbuilder Winbuilder was born (and also WHY), and completely forget that there must be some FUN in the works.
Nuno started with Batcher, to see and test some new approaches, using what he had available at the time (Delphi) and creating a new (very simple) batch language from scratch, and all in all, at the time and given the various constraints, including his previous (no offence intended, but limited) experience, he did a rather good work .
If you prefer, everyone was at the time "fighting" with some limitations of Bart's PE builder and instead of talking a single guy had the courage (and will and dedication ) to "clean the table and put on it a new thingie" (whilst all the rest of the people were just around whining and blabbering), to support the new tool, to create a new webboard for it, etc., etc..
Whether in the course of it's evolution Winbuilder could have been "better" (if not "coded", "designed") is another thing (and actually part of the present discussion), now that Nuno (IMHO with a completely "wrong" decision) has indicated he is going to move the development to Java you are asking why he didn't use Java since day one?

but why on earth they get the binary ASCII coded, why not just a zip or cab file similar to an Android app or an OSX application file???

Why not?
After all there is (though on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard" ) a simple command line app that can compress/encode and uncompress/decode, wbzip:
http://reboot.pro/9673/
the fact that no human being can possibly use it (should he/she be able to find it) without a "helper batch":
http://reboot.pro/in...showtopic=10783
adds to the ... the "spice" of the "Winbuilder experience" .

This particular point of yours equates to "Why attachments in e-mails are encoded and embedded indstead of ....?"
The whole point is that anyone in it's right mind would use the feature to store "binary snippets", "small utilities/tools" and the like, and NEVER use it to store "main apps", but for misterious reasons (some of which actually just revealed by Medevil ) every other project/.script developer used and uses (IMNSHO) this optional feature improperly, BTW often breaking in this the License of the embedded main app, compare with:
http://reboot.pro/3124/


Wonko

[Atari800XL]

instead of talking a single guy had the courage (and will and dedication ) to "clean the table and put on it a new thingie" (whilst all the rest of the people were just around whining and blabbering), to support the new tool, to create a new webboard for it, etc., etc..

Sorry about this "me too" posting, but this is something that exactly says what I was thinking while reading this thread over the last week...
It took me a few days/weeks to grasp the concept of WinBuilder, but looking at the finished WinPE_SE USB stick I have now, it was all worth it!
"A better WinBuilder" in the future? Sure, bring it on, but I'll believe it when I see it.

[patpat]

@Wonko the Sane
>You seem to forget HOW exactly Batcher Opernbuilder Winbuilder was born..
I didn’t forget. I just do not know the story like many other people out there.

>using what he had available at the time (Delphi)...
wasn'y invented "C/C++" at the time? nor even Java which he seems to like so much these days?

>instead of talking a single guy had the courage...
ok ok, got the point but don't you agree that guy's credit is running out faster than ever these days, mostly after his last architectural decisions?

>now that Nuno (IMHO with a completely "wrong" decision) has indicated he is going to move the development to Java you are asking why he didn't use Java since day one?
I think you didn’t understand what I say. I haven’t asked why he didn’t coded his batcher in Java. I have asked why he didn’t use Java or Lua as the languages for winbuilder’s scripting module.
Who on earth decides to use a custom made scripting language when you can just use already made good scripting engines?? This is just another example of un-understandable design decisions.

>Why not?
I can give you probably 20 reasons explaining why winbuilder script file format (even being optional) is nuts...

>This particular point of yours equates to "Why attachments in e-mails are encoded and embedded indstead of ....?"
of course not; there are fundamental reasons explaining why embedded e-mail attachment have their particular format

>used and uses (IMNSHO) this optional feature improperly
if an option is very often used improperly that tell us the option is not well designed.

>BTW often breaking in this the License of the embedded main
definitely..


@Atari800XL
>"A better WinBuilder" in the future? Sure, bring it on, but I'll believe it when I see it.
guau... this is what I call a "free stuff aggressive demander"... ;-)

[Wonko the Sane]

>You seem to forget HOW exactly Batcher Opernbuilder Winbuilder was born..
I didn’t forget. I just do not know the story like many other people out there.

Well, then you need to document yourself and you will see that once put into their historical perspective a lot of things will start to make more sense (though not necessarily make sense in an "absolute" way)
It is far too easy to criticize afterwards, just think how different would be the IT world if the IBM guys had done the right choice and instead of choosing MS-DOS CPM QDOS had chosen an actual good OS?
http://inventors.abo...-On-The-Map.htm

>using what he had available at the time (Delphi)...
wasn'y invented "C/C++" at the time? nor even Java which he seems to like so much these days?

Is there any alternative meaning to "he had available at the time" different from the intended meaning of "a tool he already had handy, had bought a license for and was familiar with"?
I did not write "that was available at the time" (meaning what "existed"), I wrote "he had available at the time".

>instead of talking a single guy had the courage...
ok ok, got the point but don't you agree that guy's credit is running out faster than ever these days, mostly after his last architectural decisions?

It's not like points that you can gain or loose, notwithstanding any decisions (right or wrong) Nuno has taken afterwards (and will take), he must be credited for what he did at the time.

>now that Nuno (IMHO with a completely "wrong" decision) has indicated he is going to move the development to Java you are asking why he didn't use Java since day one?
I think you didn’t understand what I say. I haven’t asked why he didn’t coded his batcher in Java. I have asked why he didn’t use Java or Lua as the languages for winbuilder’s scripting module.
Who on earth decides to use a custom made scripting language when you can just use already made good scripting engines?? This is just another example of un-understandable design decisions.

Again, Why not?
Since the idea (at the time) was to explore new approaches/ways, the idea of using a new script syntax was not (and still isn't) that bad, we may well talk about the utter stupidity of using commas as separators and about the known "quote" issues, but there is nothing actually "bad" in the decision itself.

>Why not?
I can give you probably 20 reasons explaining why winbuilder script file format (even being optional) is nuts...

And I woud probably - once you will have them listed (all 20 of them) - find another 20 or 30 ones.
What gives?

>This particular point of yours equates to "Why attachments in e-mails are encoded and embedded indstead of ....?"
of course not; there are fundamental reasons explaining why embedded e-mail attachment have their particular format

And I woud probably - once you will have those "fundamental" reasons listed - find arguments to be able to call each single one of them "nuts".
Again, what gives?

>used and uses (IMNSHO) this optional feature improperly
if an option is very often used improperly that tell us the option is not well designed.

Not at all, it only shows that a lot of developers do not care about a number of things and thoughtlessly go "mainstream" because it is "convenient" to them or because they are lazy or because any number of other reasons.
It is just like firearms, the fact that they are often used improperly does not mean that they are badly designed, simply that they are often used improperly.


Wonko

[patpat]

@Wonko

If for you I need to research and get a historical perspective of the project to make sense of it…
if for you it’s the same inventing a script language than using a proved one.
if for you the reasons behind the e-mail attachment format are arguable and comparable to the reasons supporting winbuilder script file format
if you think that the credit for coding an app is forever and people will follow u no matter what you do..
t
hen I just stopped understanding you.

[Wonko the Sane]

then I just stopped understanding you.

stopped?
Actually my last couple of posts were made exactly because I had the feeling you alreeady were not understanding what I wrote....

Yes, you need knowledge of events and historical perspective to "understand" and "judge" past events and decisions (no matter if "right" or "wrong").

I never wrote that inventing a new thing is the same (or better or worse) than using an existing script language, but when the project is creating something new it is a possible option.
Compare with the reinvention of the wheel:
http://www.911cd.net...showtopic=22554

*Any* reason (right or wrong) can often be confuted (in Italian we have a word for it, "Senno di poi", i.e. roughly "Later wiseness") some time later, comeon, are you telling me that BASE64 encoding and embedding in an e-mail is in any way "smart" or "smarter" than *any* other possible approach?

The credit for something done, as I tried to explain to you is something that remains UNchanged (yes, it is forever), but does not imply (and particularly not for me) that one should follow anyone because of it.
Most probably I am the greater critic of Winbuilder actually participating to the board, and since the very first days I am often in disagreement with *something* see here for an old example:
http://reboot.pro/5281/
but that does not reduce in the least the value of what has been done by Nuno and pscEx and all the various .script developers.
Could all that have been done "better"?
Probably yes, but right now there is not a "new Winbuilder competitor" to make proper comparisons, when there will be one, then we will talk of it's far superior interface/script syntax, and what not.



Wonko

[IceBlackIce]

Are we really comparing email attachment to script embedding ? When I open an email in any email program i see the attachments and the email itself...i could care less for the way its embedded or whatnot because i dont see thousands of lines in my email and if i make an email i can read it in any program and see the same thing in each one of them. And trying to justify a problem approach with a 20 years old standard is beyond me. And im not even bringing the effort to change global email concept to .script concept.
Scripts concept are wrong, they have been wrong from the start, and from what i saw, there have been people complaining about it for years and it has been done nothing about it, so i dont hope to change that.

You (developers) say that some script makers are good and others are less good, I ask who's fault is that? The script maker who doesn't know any better? The program who lets people do it in a bad way? The project maintainer who doesn't create high enough "standards" to the project? When an end-user downloads the program he "trusts" that these projects are the best ones, the supported ones, if even these ones are a confusion with good scripts and "not so good" scripts how will people download other users scripts to their projects?

And the projects is another issue...why isnt there an easy way to create a project? To make people come in the site and register and upload it somewhere? Why cant i offline create a project inside the program with such and such script and make it work?
Why cant I build 2 or 3 projects in batch mode if they are properly configured? Why must i press play in each and everyone of them?

I dont know the story behind of Winbuilder, but if the goal was to have an alternative to bartpe..,in the golden ages of bartpe, they had companies building their own plugins and "support" them in their own way, does Winbuilder have that? And heres another time the story about plugins again...a simple set of instructions parsed by the program that does the job itself.

No one is trying to point fingers at anyone for doing a job the way its done now, but I don't understand why the architecture of things is immutable just because its what we have and it was the way it was done at the time...and if the excuse to try to change this is "hey we dont have a competitor so we cant compare to their superior approach" i think its time to give up and go back to my batches.

[pscEx]

You (developers) say that some script makers are good and others are less good, I ask who's fault is that? The script maker who doesn't know any better? The program who lets people do it in a bad way?

Some C++ developers are good and others are less good, I ask who's fault is that? The developer who doesn't know any better? The program who lets people do it in a bad way?

Peter

[IceBlackIce]

I like the part where my sentence gets parsed out and you leave project maintainers out of the quote and a general analogy gets made, even if it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

C++ compiler is perfect as it is (hey every compiler ever made is perfect as it is), there are just good programmers and not so good programmers...no need to change anything.

Hey i can use pointless analogies too