Linux 'Weblications' with SashXB 181
Ches2000Pro writes "Via Wired News, IBM has announced a new Linux scripting environment called SashXB. From their description: SashXB is an open source application environment that exposes native functionality to JavaScript. It's ideal for web developers with HTML and JS skills who want to write full-featured native applications, as well as experienced programmers who'd appreciate the convenience of rapid application development. SashXB is being released under the LGPL license." It's not exactly new, but seems to be quite usable now. Has anyone used this?
exposes native functionality to JavaScript (Score:2, Informative)
Re:exposes native functionality to JavaScript (Score:1)
Re:exposes native functionality to JavaScript (Score:2)
No, you are not. It's the same thing as ActiveX that everyone always complains about, judging by the description in the slashdot post.
Re:exposes native functionality to JavaScript (Score:1)
Yes you are. (Score:2)
*sigh* (Score:3, Informative)
Also, Javascript has nothing to do with Java at all. It was origionaly called LiveScript before sun's Java came out and Netscape decided to confuse the fuck out of everyone.
Re:exposes native functionality to JavaScript (Score:2)
http://sash.alphaworks.ibm.com/framer/?//
Begin Quote:
Mike Oliver - 05:31pm Sep 24, 2001 GMT
Chief Architect, Morningstar Systems Inc.
to various IE and Windows Explorer functionality well beyond normal javascript and that is exciting.
Here are my questions as it relates to this expanded functionality access:
1) What are the differences in power between Windows Explorer Plug-ins and Sash Weblications for Windows Explorer? i.e. what can I do in one I can't do in the other.
2) What are the differences in power between Internet Explorer Plug-ins and Sash Weblications for Internet Explorer? i.e. what can I do in one I can't do in the other.
3) Since IE is cross platform with versions now for the Mac and others, will the Sash Weblications for IE be equally cross platform?
4) One of the shortfalls of Java Applets has always been the sandbox. With the Java 2 plug in that is relaxed some, please discuss the advantages of Sash Weblications with regard to Java Applets.
Can't wait to hear the responses.
----
no response (sigh)
Sean Martin - 10:01pm Jan 18, 2002 GMT ( 3.2)
Hi Jan,
Sorry if it seems that we are ignoring you on your last post (we certainly read it and don't mean to be rude at all), but I guess we had nothing constructive to respond with. Clearly the sash team strongly feels there is a market for something like Sash and we are finding many folks outside and inside IBM that agree with us... but then we *are* terribly biased
One thing that may interest you that we are working on is a fusion between sash and a jvm.. this is no where near ready for public viewing yet, but will eventually allow mixing and matching between java and javascript code in a weblication, a unified security model, but with all the desktop integration and other system services sash currently enjoys.
Finally I can assure you that the sash team is alive and well, although somewhat consumed building a family of killer applications using sash for our intranet.
Kindest regards, Sean
End Quote:
I should point out that Mike Oliver originally posted this back on June 25, 2001.
popups (Score:2, Funny)
Re:popups (Score:1)
Actually, popups (and any untrusted web stuff) getting access to native apps should be a far bigger concern.
Huh? (Score:1)
You mean things like `rm -rf
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
You mean things like `rm -rf
YOU SEE, YOU SEE! LINUX *IS* BECOMING MORE LIKE WINDOWS!!!!!!
Re:Huh? (Score:1)
I don't trust anything that exposes itself natively.
Some things just aren't meant to be seen!
too bad (Score:2, Funny)
JavaScript? (Score:1, Funny)
Cool! Another way to gain root! (Score:1, Interesting)
Who wants to take bets on when the first JS rootkit comes out?
Of course, this is hypothetical as long as nobody actually uses it. If somebody takes it and puts it a a web browser, that will be the end (or the beginning).
BTW, Windows already has that: ActiveX. You can see what kind of mess it can do.
Browser OS (Score:4, Funny)
Dang. Makes me wonder why we even need operating systems anymore.
Re:Browser OS (Score:1)
i thought that was the point of all these things like java and this was so that you could get away from OS specific development. who knows maybe one day we can get away from using an operating system on our computers, and when that day comes i will welcome it, as long as it works.
Re:Browser OS (Score:1)
They mentioned a Sash for Windows client, so you can write some cross-platform apps (and they showed an example), but I think this SashXB client allows access to some X based UI toolkits - GTK, Glade. So I think you're SOL if you want to write cross platform.
Re:Browser OS (Score:1)
Other extensions, such as GTK and Glade, are linux-specific, so you still use the full functionality of a specific platform if you choose.
Re:that's what M$ thought 6 years ago... (Score:1)
I plan on creating a browser for p0rn only. It caches the p0rn files on a nfs partition that windows can't read, but my weblication thingy can. This way snooper programs can't see my p0rn cause it is not part of the windows file system. WHEEEEE!!!!
You see, I'm shite at C++. I'm decent at C, Javascript, and Perl. So this is just what I need to feel like a real man (ok real geek).
Yes, I'm a moron with 3rd degree burns.
Tried this before... (Score:4, Interesting)
This was long before MSJScript, but anyway, while it worked out pretty cool for the most part, it was horribly painful to add classes and especially painful to map APIs (I was using Win32 at the time) to JS objects.
My second problem was that as a language, JS is just to forgiving. Optional use of semi colons and other things such as that make it a little confusing to distribute and debug.
I always have liked JS though and I'm glad someone wrote a good backend to it. I'll have to check it out...
SashXB Testimonial (Score:5, Informative)
This is a reprint of text from MartinG from the old thread [slashdot.org]:
> Can anyone point to a coherent explaination of what
> Sash can offer on Linux, and what it's parts are?
>
This question is probably going to be asked a lot, so I guess we should
start creating a FAQ somewhere.
Anyway. This is of course by no means an official position on anything;
these are just my thoughts.
The Sash end-user gets:
* Painless installation (no command line necessary -- straight from the
browser to the [graphical] installer).
* One-click uninstallation, with recursive dependency checking to prevent
the removal of vital components.
* A point and click interface for the execution and management of all of
his weblications
* Automatic updating of programs/extensions (this is in the works)
* Tiny download sizes for native, fully functional weblications
* Highly componentized infrastructure avoids bloatware -- a program only
fetches and loads exactly what it needs to run.
* Tight security controls every single thing a weblication tries to do
The Sash developer gets:
[from a structural point of view]
* Rapid deployment and easy management of programs
* Powerful native functionality without having to learn a new skill set
(provided that he already knows JavaScript and HTML)
[from a design point of view]
* Ridiculously easy drag-and-drop design for his weblication's UI
* Painless integration of UI with SashScript
* A full-featured IDE which takes him from start to finish in creating a
weblication, including:
- syntax highlighting
- syntax assistance (a la Microsoft's Intellisense)
- multiple document/multiple window interface
- Druids (wizards) which aid in the creation of any given action,
or in the creation of the weblication as a whole
I'm sure there are more features which I am missing right now.
Yeah, this sounds terribly hokey, but it's actually true. We've created a
sample text editor, a web browser, even a simple Lotus Notes mail client
(as demos), each in about an hour, start-to-finish.
Man, I really do sound like a salesman
As for parts, perhaps that's for another email. There are two main parts:
the runtime, which runs the weblications, and the WDE (development
environment) which aids developers in writing weblications. For more info,
check out the README.* files in the source tree...
AJ
Re: 2 FOOT HARD-ON! (Score:1)
And since it exsposes the OS, there should be no reason why you couldn't access binaries with it as well(ala perl modules). And I can use DOM to make pretty interfaces too.
die C# die!
Weblications == bad (Score:2, Offtopic)
Making a long story short, the Netscape 4.x functionality ended up being severely lacking (since 4.x JS engine wasn't capable of performing most of the functionality they wanted). Oh, we weren't allowed to refresh the pages very often, so almost everything had to be done with JS actively manipulating the current document. To make matters worse, my spineless boss allowed them to change the spec several times throughout the project. When you have 1000+ lines of JS per page, any little change is a pain in the ass.
Re:Weblications == bad (Score:4, Informative)
I would suggest that everyone try out SashXB before they make a judgement. Try the FTP client [ibm.com], it rocks.
Re:Weblications == bad (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Weblications == bad (Score:2)
My first reaction to the mockups we were given was, "we're doing this with java applets, right?". Once that was shot down, i knew the project was impossible. It ended up being at least three times over bugdet, and my the company had only charged the client a flat rate for the whole sha-bang. So, yes, we got screwed.
Re:Weblications == bad (Score:1)
Re:Weblications == bad (Score:2)
My guess is, no, they haven't learned their lesson. I don't expect them to survive the rest of this year.
Re:Weblications == bad (Score:1)
They wanted native gui functionality, yet cross-platform, and it had to work on netscape (all vers) and IE (all vers). Oh, did I mention that we couldn't expect the users to download anything additional, EVER? So that ruled out java applets (since xp doesn't have a jvm by default). The whole thing was done with ASP, Javascript, and plain html forms.
Sorry for a newbie-type question, but could you have done it in Flash? I believe there are Flash plug-ins for all the platforms you mention. Flash 5 supports XML and can talk directly to databases. I know Flash has a horrible rep among Web designers, but none of the objections I've seen are inherent in the technology. They're all design issues that can be circumvented with intelligent planning.
Re:Weblications == bad (Score:2)
Other than that, Flash is a pretty horrible piece of software to go writing applications in. It requires a good deal of graphical thinking, and the underlying structure of Flash does not lend itself to writing full-blown applications.
This, of course, is only my opinion.
No native Flash player? (Score:2)
Re:No native Flash player? (Score:2)
Flash still sucks as an application environment, though.
Yeh, but (Score:2)
Re:Weblications == bad (Score:2)
Oh, we weren't allowed to refresh the pages very often,
Oops.
I've often thought that a reasonable GUI could be emulated with enough server side logic (couldn't PHP be used for this?), but the premise rests heavily on having a really fast connection.
Heh (Score:2)
Re:Weblications == bad (Score:1)
Do you mean via mostly client-side code or server-side code?
I have come to conclude that most typical B-to-B and intranet applications could be drivin by relatively simply GUI commands in a GUI-Browser. The problem is that any HTTP-based GUI-like thingy ends up trying to do it via client-side scripting or applet-like technology. The "commands" to draw and handle events from a typical custom biz app are not that large I have concluded after thinking about this issue for more than 5 years. IOW, the GUI can be entirely server-controlled without local scripting. (My personal experiment and draft protocol is called SCGUI, plug plug.)
IOW, we don't need to download scripts and EXE's per app to get the performance and response needed for real GUI's. Why does the industry keep reinventing this wrong wheel?
Well... (Score:2)
Before you ask: SashXB and Security (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Before you ask: SashXB and Security (Score:2, Interesting)
In any event, this seems like a pretty handy tool for doing development on trusted networks like corporate intranets. At least if your corporate end users have linux on their desktop.
Maybe too some enterprising college students will be able to do some cool things with it...
Applets have been rejected. Give up already. (Score:1)
It is fat-client in a leaky bottle all over again.
What is really needed[1] is a lite-client remote GUI protocol (like SCGUI, plug plug). IOW, a GUI Browser that does not download any "smart" code that executes.
[1] At least for B-to-B and intranet stuff. Businesses keep trying to create VB/Delphi-like GUI's with JS+DOM, and it really stinks.
Windows has had this for a while (Score:5, Informative)
Also, the upcoming JScript.NET will have similar functionality, but will be cross-platform.
Re:Windows has had this for a while (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Windows has had this for a while (Score:2)
It's a shame WSH doesn't provide the application scriptability that AppleScript does, it's a pain to automate apps on Windows in comparison. Like WSH, you can have language plug-ins for the AppleScript system, scripting any AS-aware app in whatever the language has a plug-in, perl or JavaScript, for example.
Re:Windows has had this for a while (Score:2, Informative)
In the last weeks I played around with Sash a little bit and found that it exceeds the capabilities of WSH by far.
Sash allows me to create GUIs in HTML and the programming logic in SashScript (a superset of JavaScript) similar to creating webpages. Those files run like regular programs, desktop toolbars (like the IE5+ address toolbar or quicklaunch toolbar), IE toolbar extensions, Start Menu Search entries,
Adding a german-english translator to my desktop as a taskbar enty field was a matter 4 lines of HTML and JavaScript code - this is what sold Sash to me.
Wolfram
Re:Windows has had this for a while (Score:2, Informative)
Actually I think HTA (HTML Applications) is the closer Microsoft technology to this. I think it was first introduced in IE 5.0 (may have been 4.x but I don't remember). Basically what you can do with it is rename any html file to .hta and it is then run and acts and has the permissions of an application. There is only one specialized HTML tag used, to specify the icon file, borders, whether or not to allow multiple instances, etc., but other than that its all HTML/CSS/Javascript/ActiveX as far as IE supports it. You also have color constants in IE which match up with the user defined system colors as well, so you can make some pretty nice looking things with it. I've made several apps I use myself and I quite like it actually.
Anyway, more information (general and reference) can be found on this page [microsoft.com].
oops. (Score:2, Funny)
deep breath.... (Score:4, Insightful)
JavaScript is just a language, just as Python, Perl are languages.
JavaScript can be hosted by browsers, shells, custom applications, etc...
It can only access the OM's supplied to it... For instance, the most (in)famous is the DOM... remember, Document Object Model...
So, if someone wants to write a shell host, expose shell functionality as a SOM (Shell Object Model), it's entirely up to them, but DOES NOT COMPROMISE BROWSER SECURITY....
I'm begining to think "News for Nerds" means techno-weenies, who have no technology/development/systems background whatsover, duuuuuuuude, lets qo to a 2600 meeting and talk about all the coooooool hacker movies we watch.....
Re:deep breath.... (Score:1)
That's assuming no IE-style bugs whatsoever in it's integration with a browser, isn't it? It seems highly probably that while the SPECIFICATION does not compromise security, the specification is complicated enough that most implementations will compromise you, at least at first.
Re:deep breath.... (Score:1)
Perhaps I'm just confused by this definition of 'browser security'. If I install this SashXB, and I go to some page in Mozilla that takes over my computer by using Sash, would this count as "screwing up my browser's security?" Because it sure counts under any concept of security that anyone about.
What I saw (Score:2)
I had a hard time picturing CmdrTaco et al. Embracing porting slashcode to XP.
See also: XWT (Score:4, Interesting)
This is quite similar to XWT [xwt.org]. XWT is often described as "A 'lite' version of Mozilla's XUL, packaged as an ActiveX/JavaApplet, using XML-RPC instead of XPCOM.
From the xwt.org front page:
XWT is the XML Windowing Toolkit. It lets you write remote applications -- applications that run on a server, yet can "project" their user interface onto any computer, anywhere on the Internet....
Unlike all other remote-display technologies, XWT applications are usable and responsive regardless of network congestion, delays, and even complete network failures.
The XWT Engine is packaged as both an ActiveX control and a Java applet, so you can access XWT applications from all major platforms (Win95/98/ME/NT/2k/XP, Linux, Solaris, MacOS X) without installing any additional software. It is distributed under an open source license (LGPL and GPL), so it can easily be ported to new platforms.
There's a tutorial [xwt.org] to walk you through creating a tic-tac-toe application and a comprehensive reference [xwt.org] spelling out all the nitty gritty details about how the engine works.
Re:See also: XWT (Score:1)
Re:See also: XWT (Score:1)
I wondered if you'd pop up in this discussion. :)
No doubt =)
Care to post a few lines about your plans to use XWT to enhance PHPTriad [phpgeek.com]?
Re:See also: XWT (Score:2)
Thank you (Score:4, Funny)
It's all these great new terms like "weblications" that make this world of new technology (or worlnewology!) a better, happier place.
Wait a second... (Score:1, Troll)
After all if we are talking Windows hosts there are about a dozen ways to screw the box up using Windows scripting tools and a half bit of VB knowledge. Is there something I am missing from the article?
Most of the posters here have either screamed about the possibilities of exploits or reached the same conclusion I just did. What are the other half missing?
_______________________________________________
A brain. (Score:2)
So... (Score:2)
Just asking.
OS X? (Score:1)
Re:OS X? (Score:1)
Bottom line: SashXB is open source. If you have a Mac OS X box and the time, try it. Better yet, use the Cocoa MozEmbed and make it run natively.
Been thinking about this (Score:4, Interesting)
This actually fits in quite nicely something I've been thinking about.
One of the nice things about web pages is that you can just look at the source. Wouldn't it be great if you could look at the source for any widget in an application in the same way? Even make changes just by editing the source directly, if you wanted to. So, for instance, if I'm using a Word processor and there's a function I never use I can just delete it from the source script.
Re:Been thinking about this (Score:2, Interesting)
Mozilla, and apps based on its tech, some Perl IDE (Can't remember the name right now) use XUL files to describe behaviour and appearance of widgets, DTD files to define different locales, and use javascript for their logic.
I am using a US keyb layout now while used to a Finnish one, so I am not getting anywhere fast with this post, but have a look at the Moz stuff. It's perfectly possible (if not done already) to write for example an Office app using just those Moz tools. Including very rich features (HTML content, pictures, plugins, etc), drag and drop, clipboard, etc.
ide name (Score:1)
Re:Been thinking about this (Score:2)
you're talking about Komodo. I use it every day, 10 hours a day.
One thing to point out about Komodo, it's damned slow. Not sure if that's because of the built in Perl interpreter (for instant debugging) or XUL.
Re:Been thinking about this (Score:1)
I'm actually pretty damned happy with it. I've been using it nonstop for about 3 weeks developing an internal PHP webapp and it's a lifesaver.
Re:Been thinking about this (Score:1)
don't get me wrong...I used it for a few months before we bought, and I wouldn't have gotten the pointy-hairs to buy me a copy if it wasn't useful. The good definitely outweighs the bad.
The regex prototyper and real time debugging are killer features, I just wish the damned thing was a bit peppier...
Re:Been thinking about this (Score:3, Interesting)
Nowadays, server-based software such as Wiki [wiki.org] and variants [twiki.org] make collaborative web editing possible, but mass practical application of internal linking is still a long way away, due to issues of trust and synchronization, although steps [w3.org] are being taken in this direction as well.
Re:Been thinking about this (Score:2)
For an example of what I mean, visit www.tuxscreen.net and just *try* to figure out what all you have to do to get the current version of the software installed and running. The information is there (mostly), but it's so fragmented as to make it pretty much impossible to find or use.
Still, there's no doubt that two-way webs are someting we should strive for, a la Ted Nelson's Xanadu concept.
Sadly, the fundamental problem is that information organization is what produces much of the value of information, and organizing information is something that's fundamentally hard and difficult to automate. (Not that the KM (Knowledge Management) guys aren't trying, but they've got a long way to go, and those are pretty rarefied tools, not available to most of us, either by reason of price or complexity/learning curve.)
Re:Been thinking about this (Score:1)
You better be careful there, by capitalizing the word "Word" in the context of a word processor, you risk infringing on Microsoft's patent on the technology of Word and the concept of Word Processing. The BSA will contact you shortly, licensing fees for the use of capitalized "Word" are expected to approach US$3200.
:)
Re:Been thinking about this (Score:2)
Along the same lines... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Along the same lines... (Score:2)
Book about Sash (for Windows) (Score:3, Informative)
SashXB? (Score:1)
I mean, they're a huge company with vast experience of naming products. IMHO, even sed, awk and grok are fine, because at least they are pronouncable, and probably stood for something once.
Maybe I'm wrong though and there is a logical basis to the naming. If so, does anyone know what it is?
I suspect that they might be getting their product names from /dev/urandom
Re:SashXB? (Score:1)
wtf?!
That's not logical!
I don't like this at all! (Score:1, Funny)
Re:I don't like this at all! (Score:2)
Paying programmers to write quality applications?
The everyone-contributes model only goes so far in application development and doesn't cover all the grunge-work that programmers won't do (user documentation; help files; clean, friendly examples).
Hmm...I think I've seen this idea before (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Reading the posts thus far, has no one actually used this?
No Windows version. Interesting... (Score:1)
In many ways this looks like a Visual Basic for Linux. In some ways this would be more cool if there was a Windows version, simply because it would provide a cross-platform development environment that MS didn't control and that would allow for easy transition of users to Linux.
Still, Linux only has some interesting possibilities as well...
Jack William Bell; who writes business software for a living and would like very much to transition his users to Linux
Re:No Windows version. Interesting... (Score:3, Informative)
Wasn´t there a Lotus Notes Client in sash ? (Score:1)
Do we need another scripting language? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Do we need another scripting language? (Score:1)
One other thing: this environment is not really a new scripting language, rather it exposes native components to the JavaScript language. The JavaScript language has been around for some time now and is used in more than just browsers (think server-side JavaScript).
Re:Do we need another scripting language? (Score:2)
Because Perl is insanely popular, and many people prefer the Perl language syntax and layout over python. Not to mention that perl is really just an extension of Unix... Maintaining the same style and expressions.
It sure as hell isn't running in MY brower. Perish the thought. Not to mention that Javascript is an incredibly weak language. I can't even imagine any useful purposes on the server side. Of course, that's what this is meant to address. It just doesn't NEED addressing.
I can understand the need for a scripting language like perl, and even for PHP (while perl can potentially do the same function, PHP is far cry from Perl), but another scripting language simply reproducing funcionality is a terrible idea. Fragmentation was what endangered the future of Unix systems in the first place. Now we have to worry about endangering the future of scripting languages.
Database Integration? (Score:3, Informative)
Looked through all of the documentation for this and could not find anywhere that stated weather sash (windows or linux version) had the ability to work with ODBC or any other API's (OCI for oracle, or the MySQL API, etc) If not then this would be of little use for anything above and beyond your typical "Hello World", or "Ticker App" (reading from a flat file of course
To see what it does however here [ibm.com] is a link of a one page example that explains it better than reading the whole book!
Re:Database Integration? (Score:1, Informative)
You're not getting it (Score:3, Informative)
Even as we speak I am writing an application for a customer. The app is a cross-platform, GUI/Character installer for their application. No existing installers could do what was necessary, so I'm writing a dedicated one from scratch. What to write it in? Perl/TK, was the only realistic choice.
Now lets look at some Perl/Tk code as compared to SashXB (formatted poorly to avoid lameness filter). Now what I'd much rather do is something like this: And have this run from the OS, not in a browser. It looks like Sash will let me do this, and what could be wrong about that?
Since important parts of SashXB (needs a new name) are Gecko, XPCom, and the Mozilla JavaScript interpreter. It seems that rich, complicated UI's are in reach via XUL. I sincerely hope that a richer version of SashXB will soon be mentioned in the same breath as Perl, Python, and Ruby.
MacOS has had this for years (Score:3, Informative)
The great thing is that virtually every Mac application has hooks for scripting through the standard Apple Events [apple.com] model which is automagically available to all other OSA languages.
Seems Alot Like VB To Me (Score:2)
Re:Seems Alot Like VB To Me (Score:1)
I curse the day that Netscape coined the term JavaScript.
RMS? (Score:1)
Useful on Darwin/OSX? (Score:2, Informative)
JavaScript OSA is a port of the Mozilla JavaScript 1.5 scripting system to the Macintosh in the form of a OSA (Open Scripting Architecture) component. You can use JavaScript OSA as a scripting language in any Macintosh application supporting OSA languages, such as the Script Editor included with the MacOS or our own Script Debugger product.
Though not necessarily made with "weblications" in mind, you could probably produce a full featured application using this AppleScript component (such as by making calls to a Unix shell or via XML-RPC and SOAP calls implemented in OSX 10.1). My question is, would a Darwin/OSX port of SashXB be more or less useful than just using JavaScript OSA for a system-level JavaScript API?
Java Webstart... (Score:1, Interesting)
However, unlike Java, I think this might be very successful on the desktop and might release an avalanche of Applications and I certainly wish it luck and wish to congratulate the developers. The only problem that I can see is that it uses GTK+ which will make it difficult to port.
For all those who kept on dissing Mozilla, perhaps now is the time to have a rethink.
What-plication? (Score:1)
Just what Linux needs... (Score:2)
Anybody remember VB-Script? Oh wait, it's not MS, so new features are a good thing.
Fabulous. (Score:1)
I'm going to give this tool a try.
Too Many Dependencies... (Score:1)
with SashXB is that it should be deployed as a stand-alone package
without a dependency to certain particular versions of
libraries! As soon as some of these change the whole thing would break!
At least the diretibuition should be one single binary or it should load its own set of libraries.
Personally it should have been built using wxWindows.
wrong premise (Score:2)
The premise also seems wrong to me. People who are so inexperienced that they can't figure out a scripting language like Python or Perl probably shouldn't be writing GUI applications in the first place. And Python and Perl both already have excellent GUI toolkits available to them.
SashXB also falls short in the installation area. It depends on half a dozen other packages to be installed on the user's machine. Sorry, but something like this should be a single download for the user, and a single click install.