Make Rocbkbox Utility available as .exe not as .zip

[tomers]

I'm giving up on this

[linuxstb]

I don't see the logic in zipping the Windows version of rbutil as long as it's a single .exe file - it just seems unnecessary, and other .exe files we distribute (such as ipodpatcher and sansapatcher) have never been zipped.

[shotofadds]

I can't see how it makes any difference. All versions of Windows released this decade can open .zips transparently ("compressed folders"), so the user can click a link on the web site -> open file -> double-click on the .exe 

It's not exactly rocket science!

[ZincAlloy]

The question is do we want to have as many users as possible?

Rockbox isn't made with making money in mind. It doesn't need to have as many users as possible.

[Llorean]

That being said, ease of use is a priority. I just don't consider .zip files personally "not easy" in any way, and think being able to have the entirety of the install instructions be:

"Download the .zip file for your operating system, extract it where you would like to place the installer, then run rbutil" without having to say different things for different OSes would be kinda nice.

[LambdaCalculus]

I think this thread is just about at the end of its usefulness, so if no one minds, it's time to lock up shop here.

[linuxstb]

That being said, ease of use is a priority. I just don't consider .zip files personally "not easy" in any way, and think being able to have the entirety of the install instructions be:

"Download the .zip file for your operating system, extract it where you would like to place the installer, then run rbutil" without having to say different things for different OSes would be kinda nice.

That's not how it works currently - Windows users get a zip, OS X users get a .dmg and Linux users get a .tar.bz2.  IMO it makes sense to distribute it in the most natural format for each OS, which would imply different instructions.

So if we can make the instructions for Windows as simple as "Download the .exe file and run it.", then why not?

[bluebrother]

I already posted my reasons against providing a simple executable. Rockbox Utility had external files in the past (translations) and it very well might have external files in the future again. Also, I'm against providing it as an installer (regardless if it's NSIS or something else) simply because you usually don't "install" Rockbox Utility. Besides, putting it in an installer would only have negative impacts on the download size -- the installer needs space as well, and compressing the main binary further is quite pointless as it's already compressed using upx. This is also the reason why you're seeing such a small difference between zip and exe. Without upx the binary would be around three times its actual size.

[Domonoky]

I also dont like those Installers. I want rbutil just as "place where you like and run it".

The .zip format not only helps against corruption, but also against silly Webfilters, which dont allow you to download a .exe
And its not really a problem. All PC user should be able to handle a .zip...

[linuxstb]

I already posted my reasons against providing a simple executable. Rockbox Utility had external files in the past (translations) and it very well might have external files in the future again.

The general approach in Rockbox is not to do things one way, just in case the requirements change in the future.  rbutil is a single .exe file now, so I think it's sensible to distribute it as such until such time as it changes - especially as the exe itself is already compressed with UPX.

The other reason you mentioned was that .zip files have a built in error detection.  So do UPX files...

I can't recall people complaining about not being able to download sansapatcher.exe or ipodpatcher.exe in the past.

Whilst I agree it's not a big deal for most people to unzip files, I still don't think there's any reason to zip an already compressed single file download.