BitRock InstallBuilder

[Post a new comment]
Comments
[Show all 40 comment threads on one page]
[1-10] [11-20] [21-30] [31-40] 

	Why? posted by kshade @ 91.96.14.87 on Jun 5 2009 11:31 AM
What's the point of having something like this on linux/unix?
[Reply]
Re: Why? posted by ezekiel000 @ 82.8.181.240 on Jul 16 2009 8:42 PM   To install programs? A self contained installer that doesn't need a specific packaging system is a good idea especially for commercial Linux apps.   [Reply]   Re: Why? posted by xilanaz @ 77.250.197.121 on Jul 17 2009 3:31 PM   If linux ever wants to become a common desktop envoirment, installing software in an easy and uniform way is a must and although I agree the big distributions have their repositories and packages nothing is as user friendly has having to click one link no mather what your linux distribution is. I don't mind to do a configure, make, make install but there are people who are scared to death of the command line :)   [Reply]   Re: Why? posted by Spell1337 @ 217.81.110.8 on Jul 31 2009 6:09 PM   I think openSUSEs One-Click-Install is much better for this ;)   [Reply]   Re: Why? posted by xilanaz @ 77.250.197.121 on Sep 9 2009 5:02 PM   its great but well, it won't work on other distributions, thus a uniform installer still is a good thing :)   [Reply]

	Thanks posted by WIdgeteye @ 75.109.254.121 on Apr 11 2009 9:21 PM
Thanks for making good software for the Linux OS. We need things such as this.
[Reply]

	Alternate "freeer" program on HP posted by gringer @ 130.195.86.37 on Mar 13 2009 12:47 AM
For those interested in a more free alternative (source code download, free to use/distribute for any purpose), InstallJammer was recently advertised on happypenguin.
[Reply]

	Kudos posted by Anonymous @ 81.5.169.154 on Sep 26 2007 9:52 AM
Much kudos to BitRock for responding to most of the comments here, and for clarifying many matters, and for putting up with several dozen people complaining. Take note people that sure, its not open source, but these people have the right to license it in any way they like. If all the hot air that is blown into complaining about closed source was put into making open source code, then we would already have won and open source would be dominant! I have to say that I don't think that the product will win against other installers, but damned good show for making it happen, and offering it to Linux. Keep it up!
[Reply]
Re: Kudos posted by Anonymous @ 218.186.12.10 on Jan 11 2008 2:17 AM   It's easier to make noise than to actually create an alternative. In my opinion, people should continue to make noise to pressure developers to release their source code. When able programmers see enough of grumblings, they'll feel compelled to create a free as in free speech alternative.   [Reply]

	Weeej!!! posted by Isen @ 195.198.115.222 on Sep 24 2007 2:06 PM
At last! A free install creator! With multiplatform!
[Reply]
Re: Weeej!!! posted by Isen @ 195.198.115.222 on Sep 24 2007 2:08 PM Because Install creator isn't free anymore...   [Reply]   Re: Weeej!!! posted by Anonymous @ 62.51.153.52 on Sep 24 2007 4:40 PM   1. It never was. 2. It was Windows based, not portable. Cool stuff. Installers work like a charm.   [Reply]   Re: Weeej!!! posted by TeddyKrulewich @ 75.81.16.196 on Jun 17 2008 1:09 AM   It aint free... look "License: commercial ($595) " :D   [Reply]

	Excellent product posted by GolfHacker @ 68.7.234.28 on Sep 22 2007 12:09 AM
I used Bitrock for my commercial Dirk Dashing game, and it has worked out very well. We've received nothing but positive feedback and praise for our Linux installer. We will be using Bitrock for our upcoming Fashion Cents Deluxe game, too, and probably our future commercial games on Linux. For a powerful and professional-looking installer that is easy to use (particularly for the growing number of Windows refugees migrating to Linux), I highly recommend Bitrock.
[Reply]

	Holy crap! posted by Anonymous @ 172.203.150.223 on Sep 21 2007 8:13 PM
I am new to this site, and I didn't imagine that putting a utility on a web site would be so controversial. Perhaps I am just naive.
[Reply]
Re: Holy crap! posted by Anonymous @ 74.37.65.40 on Sep 22 2007 3:49 AM   Welcome to the wide, wide world, a place where people feel ways about stuff. Some of them feel ways about software that denies them source code. They persist in these feelings, even if some person they've never met might think those feelings were unreasonable! Shocking, but true. "A reasonable man adapts himself to his environment. An unreasonable man persists in attempting to adapt his environment to suit himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man." - George Bernard Shaw   [Reply]   Re: Holy crap! posted by damianpaz @ 190.247.33.70 on Jul 19 2009 5:20 AM   Not every people in this world know what "source code" is or what is it for. Neither they are interested in knowing or ever learn about it. And that's probably why they will never use Linux, and for that very reason Linux will never be considered an operative system for "everybody". Read everybody as in 95% of end-user market. What purpose "Free as in Beer" serves if most people can't drink it?   [Reply]

	!here posted by Anonymous @ 74.138.220.224 on Jul 13 2007 5:17 PM
Get this crap out of here. It is completely unnecessary and proprietary closed source crap.
[Reply]
Re: !here posted by bitrock @ 81.44.187.250 on Jul 13 2007 11:43 PM   This is a place for Linux games and game utilities. Some of them are open source, some of them are free but no source is provided and some of them are proprietary. In this particular case, InstallBuilder is not Open Source (some of our other products are, check out our site). I would love for it to be, but we have not found (yet) a business model that would work for it (suggestions accepted). As mentioned, although we are not free software, we offer free licenses for open source projects and non-commercial games.   [Reply]   Re: !here posted by DaVince @ 62.51.153.52 on Jul 23 2007 2:24 PM Since when is closed-source bad?   [Reply]   Re: !here posted by Anonymous @ 74.104.183.134 on Aug 25 2007 5:39 AM   Since always.   [Reply]   Re: !here posted by DaVince @ 145.92.13.189 on Sep 26 2007 11:37 AM How so? Open-sourcing a program has its pros and cons, just like keeping it proprietary is. Basically, what I'm saying is, don't think too extreme. No extreme side is a good side.   [Reply]   Re: !here posted by Anonymous @ 68.54.125.253 on Sep 26 2007 1:47 PM   I agree that in this case, the "closed source is bad" view is not a good position to hold, but it has nothing to do with being "extreme". There is no magical special place in the "middle" of every argument that is by default better than either side. Some ideas and views are just clearly better than others, by evidence for example. During slavery days, the folks who wanted to just up and free the slaves were "extreme". Middle positions WERE on the table, though today we would label them silly.   [Reply]

	BitRock InstallBuilder posted by DaVince @ 62.51.153.52 on May 16 2007 6:08 AM
"Boo hoo, this is not a game and the fact that it costs some money upsets me." Grow up, people. This stuff is good news worth mentioning on a Linux related website. (Actually, any platform.)
[Reply]
Re: BitRock InstallBuilder posted by gouessej @ 81.57.60.165 on Sep 26 2007 11:51 AM   I prefer Java Webstart :)   [Reply]   Re: BitRock InstallBuilder posted by elcugo @ 189.188.73.79 on Apr 22 2008 4:56 PM   Java WebStart is not multiplatform (seriously).   [Reply]   Re: BitRock InstallBuilder posted by sijmen @ 77.250.184.103 on Apr 8 2009 3:25 PM   I am sure it works on Mac and Windows. Those are two already.   [Reply]

	Great posted by Joshua @ 203.129.33.126 on Sep 12 2006 4:31 AM
I love it(exept for the fact that you have to pay for it)
[Reply]
Re: Great posted by Anonymous @ 81.44.190.162 on Sep 19 2006 5:26 AM   You don't have to pay for it if you're running an open source project. Requirements to apply for a free license: * Your project must meet the Open Source Initiative definition of Open Source. * The license can only be used to build installers for your project. * The license cannot be transferred or used for commercial purposes.   [Reply]   Re: Great posted by Anonymous @ 81.44.190.162 on Sep 19 2006 5:28 AM   You don't have to pay for it if you're running an open source project. Requirements to apply for a free license: * Your project must meet the Open Source Initiative definition of Open Source. * The license can only be used to build installers for your project. * The license cannot be transferred or used for commercial purposes. Please contact us via info@bitrock.com if you have any doubts :)   [Reply]   Re: Great posted by shevegen @ 80.108.103.172 on Jan 9 2007 11:53 AM   You dont have to. Reread the license terms. If your project is Open Source, you do not have to pay anything for it.   [Reply]