Talk:List of installation software

InstallShield
There's InstallShield for Linux... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.211.95 (talk • contribs) 20:29, March 10, 2008
 * Actually, I couldn't find any references to an InstallShield for Linux on the Macrovision website. Do you have a verifiable source to back up your claim? &mdash; EagleOne\Talk 22:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's called InstallAnywhere! :D --Vlad|-> 17:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Install Creator
Install Creator, made by Clickteam, isn't on this list? Is there any reason it shouldn't be? Marrow923 (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Cross Platform
Some clients listed under windows that have a "yes" in the cross platform support column are not listed in the first table... Is that intentional?

Also, the installer names should be unlinked (IMHO) and the links added as refs instead.

mfg, OldDeath - 19:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Free software Vs Proprietary
The current table could really use a clean up. Quite a few pieces of freeware or personal use "free" are ascribed to be Free Software, despite the header clearly linking to an article describing the GNU definition of free software. As well there isn't much point i having two headers, rather IMHO there should be one column "License" colour coded for Freeware, Proprietary, Open source (Or GNU Free Software (Yes I do know that there is a big difference between the two, but please, lets be pragmatic)). 174.0.171.197 (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to "Cost" and "Free/Open source" --Crashie (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

64bit support.
Can we have a column specifying support for 64bit application installation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.230.2.30 (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Eligible for inclusion
I noticed that recently some programs were removed from the list as "non-notable"? Ok, so what are the inclusion criteria? I understand that if the program is no longer maintained then it should be removed, but other than that I see no reason to dismiss given program "just because". If there is no objection I will restore some of the programs I myself consider "notable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.108.60 (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:LSC. Normally, each entry should be notable in itself, but I've left those with notable developers as well. --Ronz (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Inno Setup, NSIS, WiX and InstallShield are more notable than SharpSetup. But I simply do not get how come that Installer VISE, Install Creator, Excelsior Installer and Scriptlogic Desktop Authority MSI Studio are more notable than InstallAware. What would you think about including Visual Studio Installer project in the list? And please, don't tell me that the entries must be notable because they must be notable - I already know that. A few more comments:
 * Would you please first discuss the topic and then change? I waited for comments for more than a week before modifying the article and you try to force your idea of notability no matter what.
 * I propose to remove the above mentioned entries (Installer VISE, Install Creator, Excelsior Installer and Scriptlogic Desktop Authority MSI Studio) as non notable.
 * I propose to link to external sources that have more complete list of software for creating installers (eg. installsite).
 * When having list of countries would you consider any of them as non notable? Or to be closer to this topic: have a look at List of operating systems.
 * I know you want to fight spam, but IMO we either have a list that includes everything that is usable (by which I mean that at least the author claims that the product is maintained) or we restrict the list to really the most popular (let's say top 5 or top 7) and link to a more complete list - the choice is yours, but havig this half baked solution doesn't make any sense at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.108.60 (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Trimming it further sounds like a very good idea. It requires a clear description of the inclusion criteria and sources to support it though. --Ronz (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's what I'm asking for from the very beginning of this discussion: what are the inclusion criteria? Until we have them the list is random (and thus misleading to the reader). My original idea was to include everything that is claimed to be maintained. You disagree, fine. But please do propose any other criteria that justify the changes you have made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.193.120.17 (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I was unclear. I've trimmed it to entries where the software that has its own article and those where the developers have their own articles. --Ronz (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat weird criteria, because it is disputed whether some of these articles should exist at all (eg. Excelsior Installer) and some of them were deleted (eg. InstallAware) for IMO very weak reasons. Existence of an article doesn't say anything about notability of a given piece of software (IMO InstallAware is much more notable than Excelsior Installer), it only indicates that there was somebody that cared to write an article and there was nobody who cared to remove it. Following your logic I could create article about SharpSetup (which I'm the author of) and it would make it to the list? Doesn't make much sense, does it? Also note that list of OSes does mention systems not described in Wikipedia (only name). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.108.60 (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It depends upon the linked articles having been made in good faith and meeting notability criteria.
 * Another alternative is to find independent sources of lists (eg a comparison article from a well-known tech magazine). --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While existence of small bias in an article is not a big deal, in a list it is something quite disturbing because mere inclusion (or lack thereof) in the list implies comparison ("those in the list are notable, others are worthless"). What right do you and I have to compare InstallAware with Excelsior Installer? External list? IMO the most comprehensive is installsite.org. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.193.120.15 (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you've written. Were you trying to respond to anything in particular, or just making a statement? --Ronz (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To put it simply I'll quote a question from my first entry in this discussion: "what are the inclusion criteria?!" which apparently you still haven't answered reasonably. I gave you several arguments (disputability of noticability of several articles, other lists on wikipedia that include everything) to defend my view and you are simply ignoring them. In case you simply do not read my comments this is going nowhere! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.13.108.60 (talk) 12:09, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please focus on content and follow WP:TALK. I've done my best to address the comments and concerns here. If you'd like more detailed explanations, simply ask. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are some links which recognize the notability of some of the installers (I will expand as I find more): InstallShield, Wise Package Studio, & InstallAware ScriptLogic Desktop Authority — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reaper Eternal (talk • contribs) 22:48, 11 December 2010


 * Thanks for getting the discussion back on track.
 * I don't have a problem with finding sources as Reaper Eternal suggests. It's just a matter of finding some.
 * Installsite.org probably fails WP:RS, but seems the best choice so far. It might be worth taking to WP:RSN, especially if we can't find anything better.
 * The potential references offered by Reaper Eternal are press releases, so don't meet the criteria of being referenced by a third party. --Ronz (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Before taking installsite to RSN it would be nice to know what we should do if it is considered reliable. Would that imply that we should allow to include every program from installsite here? As you know I'm for it, but not sure if that's what you would accept.
 * I agree that the links by Reaper Eternal are not exactly what we are after. Another link: http://www.appdeploy.com/reviews/sw_installaware_studio_2005.asp - would you think that this can be considered RS?
 * BTW, I have also just noticed that other Wikipedia articles should not be treated as RS. Grobelny (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about appdeploy. Best if we get others' perspectives. --Ronz (talk) 16:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, so should I create an entry on WP:RSN asking for appdeploy and installsite? Do you have any links that could also be discussed for programs currently in the list? Grobelny (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to have more suggestions, but let's get some feedback on what we have so far. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I added an entry on RSN. As for more links: feel free to add your own to the list on RSN. Grobelny (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

InstallAware
InstallAware has been added to the Windows Installer list. InstallAware is a Windows Installer installer and has its own native engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.180.207.231 (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Packages
There's an excellent free alternative to Apple's pkg maker called "Packages" which works well. I added it to the page but a bot has removed it. Adding this note, but that's as much time as I have to put into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.82.157 (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Having said that, I'll also add that the page currently doesn't list the officially supported Apple tools for this job. I would have added them, but a bot would just have removed them again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.82.157 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

EZInstall for Windows
You might include EZInstall, see http://www.soft9000.com/service/noj.php?n=Products.EzInstall, a free installer for Windows. It would be my choice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.80.250 (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
Some claim inclusion criteria should include notability and a Wikipedia article about the software.

Notability could be used as an excuse to delete entries for commercial reasons. An installation software is notable for the purposes of this list simply by existing and having (or having had) a reasonable number of users.

Requiring an existing article is counter to the Wikipedia philosophy. A wiki is supposed to be an organic entity where people can insert links to non-existent pages and either create them themselves or let others fill in the missing knowledge. If non-existence of a page was a valid criteria Wikipedia could never have been built in the first place!

So, if you don't think an entry is "notable" apply the same criteria to every other entry on the list. If you notice there is no page associated with the entry, follow the Wikipedia ethos and create one!

Please do not arbitrarily delete entries for commercial reasons. That is vandalism at its worst. Please do not delete entries because there is no associated page. Either create one yourself or leave it up to someone else to create one.

DM — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmoss (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 May 2016‎ (UTC)
 * Hello
 * The philosophy of Wikipedia can be found in the What Wikipedia is not article. According to that philosophy and policy, Wikipedia is not a free advertisement platform and is not a directory of anything and everything. Please read this core policy and drop any assumptions to the contrary.


 * The InstallAware article was created twice and was deleted twice; once in 20 October 2006 and once in 23 March 2013. It was deleted because it was advertisement.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 07:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Will you be deleting the articles for all the software in this list, or only specific software? This appears to be an example of commercial bias to me. How can you justify deleting any one example from the list and leave the rest untouched? Dave (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add my thoughts on this, as the inclusion and notability criteria doesn't fit This particular article in my oppinion. The name of the article is List of installation software. This implies that the article attemts to keep a list of all current installers one can use, regardless of wether it is notable or have a Wikipedia page. If this is not the case, the name of the article should change or there should be a statement of some kind in the first paragraph, stating why these are included and others are not. I remember using a program called CreateInstall when I still used Windows 20 years ago. I even translated it into norwegian and received a lifetime license key as a thank you. This programm is still maintained. This was one of the listings removed in 2017. So why is this installer not eligible for an entry into this list, when the article appears to present a list of all installers one can use? Solbu (talk) 09:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

"Capture"
Capture what? -- Polluks ★  09:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't get that either, even though I'm in IT. The article does not appear to offer a single clue as to what is meant by that, and none of the products that are said to be able to do this "capture" thing have active Wikipedia articles right now, so no help there. Maybe you'll find something if you Google these products. --IByte (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)