[E-Lang] Re: Pet Extensions and such (was: what is good about E?)

[Ken Kahn]

MarkS wrote:
> I do not think people object too much to installations that ask sensible
> questions, they object to installations that ask nonsensical ones (there
is
> of course a limit to total number of questions you can ask, too, but it is
> larger than 1). You gave a perfect example: no one is going to object to
> recommending an upgrade of DirectX if appropriate (which brings up some
> interesting capability secure installation questions I need to think
about,
> thank you :-). On the other hand, the tradeoffs of speed vs disk space may
> annoy people if there are several other questions as well. The size of the
> tradeoff has to be really big to make this an appropriate user question.
>

Prior to MarkM's message about the "powerbox" I wouldn't have seen a problem
here. If, as is current practice and you seem to be suggesting, that the
writer of the installation script can ask questions like "Microsoft
recommends you update DirectX (the part of Windows designed to help games
run better). OK to do so now?" then the questions can be worded in such a
way that capabilities are granted when maybe they shouldn't. If instead the
installation script works through the powerbox then this risk is avoided.
But then it is quite a challenge to arrange things so the powerbox asks only
"sensible" questions? Note that there are at least two aspects to sensible
questions: only ask about things that are worth bothering the user about and
word the questions in such a way that you don't assume much prior knowledge.
E.g. adding my parenthetical remark to the DirectX question above.

Best,

-ken