Talk:List of installation software

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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? — EagleOne\^Talk 22:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's called InstallAnywhere! :D --Vlad|-> 17:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 I understand that if the program is no longer maintained then it should be removed, but other than that I see no reason to dismiss given program "just because".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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.