Easy extpack

[mpack]

I've just noticed that, on Windows hosts at least, .extpack files are now associated with VBox and I can install/update an extpack by double clicking it. I don't recall that being mentioned as a new feature, but whenever it happened it was a good move: thanks!

[Sasquatch]

It should have been like that with 4.0. At least I was able to just double click it or directly open it from my browser on Linux host.

[poetzsch]

No we didn't mentioned it. But you could also double click .vbox files for either first registration or starting VM's. Also you could do a little bit Drag & Drop magic with the VM list window (on Windows this works since the 4.1 betas).

[mpack]

Well actually, since I'm on the subject, can someone clarify what the deal is with extpack's? I understand that moving that stuff outside the main build allowed you to apply GPL to everything else... not something I cared about (Windows user here), but what the hey. But does the extpack really have to be downloaded and installed separately, even in the Windows installer version?

[Perryg]

They separated out the proprietary "closed source" stuff and put it in the Extension Pack. Leaving the base as OSE "open source".
What I read is that Oracle did not want the codes mixed or did not like the codes mixed, not sure which now.

[Sasquatch]

It also gives the community the chance to develop their own functionality which they can add using extpacks. E.g. one could build VNC support as alternative for VRDP, thus avoiding the use of the PUEL license (some users prefer to have everything open source licensed (GPL, BSD, Berkley, you name it).

[mpack]

Thanks guys, but I already knew the reasons for and the potential advantages of extpacks.

What puzzles me is simply: why do Windows users need to obtain "the" extpack via a second download. It's a PITA second step that I didn't need to do before, and it adds the additional failure mode of a mismatch of versions between the two parts of the software. I have the vague impression that having a clearly GPL'd main app is important in the Linux arena, but as a Windows user of course I don't care about that, and wonder why it impinges on me at all.

[Sasquatch]

You fail to see the PUEL license point. If you are a corporate user, you don't want to be limited in use because the extpack is shipped with it. There are other reasons you don't want to include the extpack in the package. From what I understand with the proxy settings in 4.1, you can install the extpack from within the program. So you don't have to install it manually (well, maybe once). With that functionality, your argument about versions out of sync won't apply any more. Also, what is the problem with clicking one more time to get the extpack? Linux users who want to use the extpack are much more troubled, they get the new GPL version from their package manager as update, but still have to go to the download site to get the extpack. Now that is more troublesome!

[Perryg]

What puzzles me is simply: why do Windows users need to obtain "the" extpack via a second download.

Why do you say this?

"Oracle did not want the codes mixed" causing the two separate downloads for all users. Linux, Windows, & MAC. +1
I am puzzled why you think that it should be different for Windows users?

[mpack]

Perry, I saw your note "Oracle did not want the codes mixed", but IMHO that didn't really answer my question: why?

I'll leave it there. This was a minor question from me, I don't really feel like turning it into some great debate.

[Perryg]

No great debate Don, I was just curious why you think Windows would be different. That's all.

[mpack]

I was just curious why you think Windows would be different

I suspect that keeping the app parts separate allows the main app to be compliant with GPL. Windows users don't care about GPL compliance, so why should they be affected by it?

[frank]

It does not matter if Windows users care or not, both packages have a different license and therefore must be shipped separated.

[Sasquatch]

I was just curious why you think Windows would be different

I suspect that keeping the app parts separate allows the main app to be compliant with GPL. Windows users don't care about GPL compliance, so why should they be affected by it?

Here you go again, generalising a group. There are plenty of Windows users that want to use GPL software and do care if a different license is on it. Same goes for Linux users, there is a group that doesn't care if everything on their system is GPL and are happy if things are proprietary.
Just because you don't care doesn't mean that others feel the same way.

[poetzsch]

I agree that there is some comfort lose to the previous version where the PUEL stuff where included in the installer. We will think about something which remind the user and maybe make it easer to install the ext-pack. But nothing for 4.1, sorry.