From rssfeeds@jmason.org  Wed Oct  9 10:53:05 2002
Return-Path: <rssfeeds@spamassassin.taint.org>
Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.spamassassin.taint.org
Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1])
	by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF30316F79
	for <jm@localhost>; Wed,  9 Oct 2002 10:52:05 +0100 (IST)
Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1]
	by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0)
	for jm@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 09 Oct 2002 10:52:05 +0100 (IST)
Received: from dogma.slashnull.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by
    dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9980eK25205 for
    <jm@jmason.org>; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 09:00:40 +0100
Message-Id: <200210090800.g9980eK25205@dogma.slashnull.org>
To: yyyy@spamassassin.taint.org
From: joelonsoftware <rssfeeds@spamassassin.taint.org>
Subject: Feedback from my posting about FogBUGZ Setup fell into four
    categories. *
Date: Wed, 09 Oct 2002 08:00:39 -0000
Content-Type: text/plain; encoding=utf-8

URL: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/20021008.html
Date: Not supplied

Feedback from my posting[1] about FogBUGZ[2] Setup fell into four categories. 

*"Why make Setup reversable? Instead you should collect all the information 
from the user and make all the changes in one batch at the end."* There are a 
couple of things to understand here. First of all, even if you do everything in 
one batch at the end, there's always a possibility that some step in the middle 
of the batch will fail, and in that case, a well-behaved setup program will 
back out the steps that were already done. There are well over 100 error 
messages in the string table for FogBUGZ Setup so the number of things that can 
fail is not insignificant. 

Second, it's not nice to tell people about an error in their input three pages 
after they made the mistake. For example, early in the FogBUGZ setup process we 
prompt you to create an account for FogBUGZ to use: 

[IMG: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/pictures/setupNewAcct.gif (FogBUGZ Setup 
Screenshot)] 

The account creation could fail for a myriad of reasons, none of which can be 
predicted before trying to create the account. For example, the password might 
not conform to the system password policy. And different national versions of 
Windows NT have different rules about accented letters in passwords (betcha 
didn't know that!). It's better to tell the user about this problem right away 
so they can correct their input rather than having a message come up during the 
long install process later, forcing the user to back up and fix it. And even if 
you force the user to back up and fix it, you still have to undo the first part 
of the work that you did before creating the account, otherwise you've left 
their system in an indeterminate state. 

In any case I need to write code to create the account and delete the account 
in case something later fails; I might as well call that code on this page of 
the wizard where I can display a useful error message. 

And what are the kinds of things that need to be reversable? Well, in order to 
upgrade FogBUGZ without requiring a reboot (and we _never, ever _require a 
reboot), we have to shut down a couple of processes that might have been 
keeping FogBUGZ files pinned down, such as IIS (Microsoft's web server). So 
part one of the batch is "Stop IIS." Now if part 2 fails for some reason, it 
would be _extremely_ rude to leave IIS not running. And anyway, it's not like I 
don't need to write the code for "Start IIS" for the end of the batch. So the 
code to rollback "Stop IIS" is already written. No big deal, I just need to 
call it at the right place. 

I think one reason that people think you should "gather all the info and then 
do all the work" is because with very large installation programs that are very 
slow, this is a polite way to waste less of the user's time. Indeed even 
FogBUGZ setup does 95% of its work at the very end. But the "create account" 
operation is so fast, that principle simply doesn't apply here. Even our 95% of 
the work phase takes well under a minute, most of which is spent waiting for 
IIS to stop and start. 

*"Why did you use VC++/MFC? Surely an advanced intelligence such as yourself 
has admitted by now that Delphi[3] is more productive."* First of all, leave 
your language religious fanaticism at the Usenet door. Somehow I managed 
to figure out_ in high school_ that language advocacy and religious 
arguments are unbelievably boring.  

Secondly, even if Delphi were more productive, the only pertinent question, 
since I am writing the code, is _what is more productive for Joel Spolsky_. And 
I don't know Delphi at all, but I know Win32, MFC, and VC++ _really, really 
well_. So while I might not outcode a good Delphi programmer, I would 
definitely outcode a completely inexperienced Delphi programmer (which is me), 
certainly over a short 4 week project. Third, many of the things I needed to do 
in this setup program are things like "grant the Logon as Service privilege to 
an account." This is rare enough that the only way to find out how to do this 
is to search the Microsoft knowlege base and the web in general. When you 
search the web in general for how to do fancy things with Windows NT, what you 
find is about 75% C code, maybe 20% VB code, and 5% everything else. Yes, I 
know, I could translate the C code into Delphi (assuming I was a sophisticated 
Delphi programmer, not a completely inexperienced Delphi programmer), but that 
costs as much productivity as I would supposedly gain from your supposedly more 
productive programming language. And fourth, I already had about 30% of the 
code I needed for Setup in MFC format: from FogBUGZ 2.0 Setup, and a library 
I've been using for years to make wizards. 

*"Why make Setup at all? You already have your customers' money. Good Setup 
programs don't increase sales."* This was actually the smartest question and 
made me think the hardest. I came up with three reasons: 

- Decreased tech support cost. This setup program will pay for itself over the 
life of the code. 
- Delight my customers. When I'm trying to get them to upgrade to 4.0, I want 
them to remember how painless the 3.0 installation was, so they won't hesitate 
because they are afraid to upgrade. I'm still using an old version of 
SpamAssassin that is becoming increasingly ineffective, even though I know the 
new version is much better, because I just can't bear the thought of another 
morning wasted. The very memory of the first SpamAssassin installation -- all 
the little SSH windows, some su'ed, trying to scroll through man pages and 
Google Groups, accidentally hitting Ctrl+Z in Emacs to undo and having it 
suspend, trying to guess why we can't get the MTA to run procmail, sorry it's 
too much. If SpamAssassin was making money off of upgraders they would have 
lost my business because they don't have a SETUP program. 
- Win reviews. Software reviewers always cast about for some kind of 
standardized way to rate software, even when they are comparing apples and 
oranges and planets and 17th century philosophers. They always have a 
meaningless list of things to review which can be applied to PC games, 
mainframe databases, web site auction software, and DNA sequencing 
software. And Setup is always on their list. A single flaw in setup is 
guaranteed to be mentioned in every review because every reviewer will see it 
and say "Aha!"


*"How can we make WISE[4] better?" *Kudos to the product manager of WISE 
Installation System for calling me up and listening to my litany of all the 
reasons his product wasn't adequate for typical IIS/ASP/SQL applications.

[1] http://www.joelonsoftware.com/news/20021002.html
[2] http://www.fogcreek.com/FogBUGZ
[3] http://discuss.fogcreek.com/delphiquestions
[4] http://www.wise.com


