[Fusioninventory-user] Incremental Software Deployment and Version Control

Alec Taylor alec.taylor6 at gmail.com
Sun Aug 14 12:58:33 UTC 2011


Thanks for all information, I am proficient in writing MSIs (WiX or
preferably MakeMSI), including writing wrappers for .exe's (and
writing exe's with NSIS or InnoSetup).

This network sometime has trouble propagating GPOs, so I thought it
would be best to have another system to fall back on. Also, with its
GLPI integration, I will be able to do everything needed for an
Intranet, IT HelpDesk and maintenance all from a single interface.

Gonéri: Looking forward to your completed project :]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Rob Townley <rob.townley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Guillaume Rousse
> <guillomovitch at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 13/08/2011 18:00, Alec Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for the suggestion, I will use either that or [more likely]
>>> OCSInventory-ng.
>>
>> opsi, ocsinventory or fusioninventory are mostly tools for payload
>> transfering between machines. To handle software management, you also need a
>> packaging system, which means .msi packages, rather than interactive
>> installation wizard (.exe). Otherwise, you'll have to handle the logic of
>> installation/uninstallation/upgrade manually for each of your software in a
>> custom vbs (or any other script language) wrapper, which is painful and
>> cumbersome.
>>
>> And once you have .msi packages, you may as well use AD GPO for deployment,
>> which offer all the grouping you need. The only advantages of previous tools
>> are better bandwidth usage if you have network limits, and more options for
>> installation time (GPO only allows for installation at boot and logon time).
>
> Setup.exe can be made silent or even switchless and silent.  MSI may
> be better at uninstalls, but exe installs can be reversed.
>
> GPO only works with Professional Editions of Windows and is not meant
> to work across the internet.
>
> If the grouping is not powerful enough, then setting up multiple
> instances on the same server seems doable and probably safer.
>
>> --
>> BOFH excuse #85:
>>
>> Windows 95 undocumented "feature"
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Fusioninventory-user mailing list
>> Fusioninventory-user at lists.alioth.debian.org
>> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fusioninventory-user
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fusioninventory-user mailing list
> Fusioninventory-user at lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fusioninventory-user
>



More information about the Fusioninventory-user mailing list