Poll: Stand-alone client for your OS? Yes/no/unsure

[Jesse_V]

We could package stand alone console clients for all OS's in the way we've been talking about doing it for linux. Would that be of interest?

Because I like collaborative efforts and voting on things, I thought I'd make a poll about this. Obviously not everyone who would be affected will be voting, but I'm hoping that the results of this poll will be a reliable representative of the overall opinion, even if it is a straw poll.

This is related to viewtopic.php?f=75&t=22116&start=0

[7im]

Not needed. Windows client already supports running as console only.

[Aardvark]

Thanks, Jesse_V. A poll for the Times.

[JimboPalmer]

I am against it, a 'stand alone' client greatly increases chances of fraud and unauthorized use of company equipment.

[jrweiss]

I support the option, but wouldn't use it (Win7-64). The current "systray" version is about as unobtrusive as it can get, and even has the option to run as a Service in many installations. Since I also use the GUI in lieu of an aftermarket monitor app, it works just fine as it is.

[bruce]

If you install the V7.1.52 on OS-X and then only start FAHControl (or some other monitor program) when you want to see what's going on, how is that any different than the functionality of a combination of the features found in the systray version and a proposed stand-alone version? The OS-X version of fahcontrol runs in the background with console output directed to a file which can be viewed with a simple OS-X script or with something more complex.

[v00d00]

I am against it, a 'stand alone' client greatly increases chances of fraud and unauthorized use of company equipment.

Whether you use a standalone client or full client, it isnt impossible to write software to deploy/borg using the current v7 client. So that argument is moot.

Yes i want one for Linux, but ive already requested it in the other thread.

[calxalot]

If stand alone client means no installer, just FAHClient, FAHCoreWrapper, and some doc files, I suppose so.
But I would put these on a separate download page, without friendly terms like "no-nonsense", and with a warning making it clear that you must use the command line to use them.
The client also needs to be smart enough to not use the current working directory if the user just double clicks the exe, as that would probably be their home directory.
It should use the exe directory, or some default under the user's home.

[screen317]

Is one really needed for Windows?

[bruce]

The client also needs to be smart enough to not use the current working directory if the user just double clicks the exe, as that would probably be their home directory.
It should use the exe directory, or some default under the user's home.

Defining a universally accepted default is a bit of a problem if you expect it to apply to all Operating Systems. Something like that can be set or changed by an installer but now you're hedging your bets.

> FAHClient.exe --help seems to answer that question. As a command-line process with no installer, it will do EXACTLY what you tell it to, no more/no less. If you don't understand the concept of setting a current directory, you'd better learn that before you try to run an application that doesn't have an installer.

> FAHClient.exe --chdir my_fah_files

[calxalot]

We know from experience that some people will download the console client and simply double click the exe.

Universal defaults are not required, as the client knows what platform it's running on and can choose an appropriate default.
I think something other than the current working directory would be more reasonable if it can determine that it was launched by double click.
CWD being the user's home directory would be a strong clue.
Dropping its files in the user's home would almost always be the wrong thing to do.

[7im]

Any stand alone client should be barebones with no defaults, for experts only. Caveat Folder.

[calxalot]

If it's on a separate download page, that would be fine.
I just don't want to see it casually downloaded by mistake.
As has happened in the past.

[Jesse_V]

If it's on a separate download page, that would be fine.
I just don't want to see it casually downloaded by mistake.
As has happened in the past.

Agreed. Since it will no doubt tailor to a smaller and more specific set of users, its documentation/instructions/help pages should be separate as well, otherwise newcomers could get very mixed up.

[v00d00]

I agree on those points.

The console client is more aimed at corporate folders, people who deploy onto other mass networked systems, linux server users that have no x or gui available, and anyone else who has no need for FAHControl.

It would be better to have it on a seperate page, like the old High Performance clients were.

If stand alone client means no installer, just FAHClient, FAHCoreWrapper, and some doc files, I suppose so.
But I would put these on a separate download page, without friendly terms like "no-nonsense", and with a warning making it clear that you must use the command line to use them.
The client also needs to be smart enough to not use the current working directory if the user just double clicks the exe, as that would probably be their home directory.
It should use the exe directory, or some default under the user's home.

This problem really only occurs for Windows.

For Linux and Macs the setup process is a little different and a bit harder. In general their is no such thing as double clicking the .exe (unless you are running something via Wine).

Also i agree at losing the no-nonsense. Maybe we can have Pro Console Only Client? (But it will probably just be console client).