Yokemate of Keyboards
Posts: 11294 from 2003/5/22
>>>>> I don't think you should add any plug-in's for Hollywood,
>>>>> as it is a commercial program, and not everyone installing
>>>>> the Chrysalis Pack will have purchased it.
>>>> The philosophy of Hollywood has always been that purchasing
>>>> it isn't required to run Hollywood programs but to create them.
>>> Yes, I know that
>> Then I'm not sure why you stressed that Hollywood was a "commercial program"
>> and that some Chrysalis users haven't "purchased it". To my mind, this would only
>> make sense in a world where the Hollywood plugins are part of the Hollywood
>> purchase and not freely downloadable, which btw would also mean that Hollywood
>> programs weren't allowed to be distributed with any of those plugins. Furthermore,
>>the Chrysalis Pack does contain Hollywood programs, which is why it also contains
>> the required plugins. So why shouldn't the Chrysalis Pack contain any Hollywood
>> plugins, again?
> Maybe if you better understood the rest of what I wrote in my reply, you would
> understand why I stressed that Hollywood (as a programming tool) is a commercial
> program, and only people who want to use it to create software should need the plug-ins.
> All software created with Hollywood should be compiled as a stand alone program,
> which requires the downloader to do nothing more than to double click on its icon,
> not go to the Hollywood site and download any plug-in that the software might require.
> Is that really so difficult to understand?
What's so difficult to understand is that despite you knowing that most Hollywood program authors do not distribute the required plugins with their programs, you tell Papiosaur that you "don't think [he] should add any plug-in's for Hollywood" to the Chrysalis Pack, which does contain Hollywood programs requiring plugins. What makes even less sense to me is the stated reasoning ("as it is a commercial program, and not everyone installing the Chrysalis Pack will have purchased it
It's a simple fact that the Hollywood programs included in the Chrysalis Pack do not work without the required plugins installed also, so Papiosaur has no choice but to include them (other than not including the Hollywood programs in the first place) and neither the commercial nature of Hollywood itself nor the fact that most Chrysalis users didn't purchase Hollywood can change this fact or even have any relevance for this fact.
> Hollywood makes it very easy to compile software as a stand alone executable,
> which [...] would also include any plug-in needed to run such software.
> If that is not the case, I stand corrected
Regarding the specific point you are trying to make, I'm not sure about the practical difference between having the plugins included in the executable file or having them included as files in the installation archive.