ChrisLynch 2 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 I would like to change the installation path of MB3 from the default: C:\Users\[user]\Romaing\MediaBrowser-Server directory To say: C:\Program Files\MediaBrowser3-Server Is this possible? I would rather not like the app to be located in the Users directory. I get why the default installation would do this, for average users. But I store this on a centralized server, and do not want MB3 installed in the directory. Is there an alternate installer than the Click-Once Installer? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37050 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 There isn't, but by fiddling with app.config the server can be made to run portable. However, if using program files automatic updates will fail due to the requirement of administrative privileges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisLynch 2 Posted December 21, 2013 Author Share Posted December 21, 2013 Yeah, I was thinking about that. But as you said, automatic updates would fail. I hope the devs can take this into consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37050 Posted December 21, 2013 Share Posted December 21, 2013 There isn't much to consider unless we decide to toss out the requirement of automated updates and plugin installations. It's just not going to happen with program files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlindArrow 0 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I thought I must have missed something after the running the installer, not one single question was prompted to me. Then I saw everything was placed in my userprofile and thought surely there must be a custom install, but it appears not. So we have no choice but to install to your pre defined location...WTF Uninstalled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tikuf 663 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Is the WTF Really necessary? We install in this location because we need to. You can change where some of the cache is stored but the core files need to be where they are for a reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Latchmor 584 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) Is the WTF Really necessary? We install in this location because we need to. You can change where some of the cache is stored but the core files need to be where they are for a reason. I know, it's ridiculous isn't it... Anyway, is there anyway to let users know the reasons for/against both User and Program Files folders before or during the install or even as a posting on here somewhere? It may help some realise the challenges faced by the devs and they'll think 'Ok I understand that and I'm going to install anyway as it seems worth it'. It may also stop all this WTF nonsense... or maybe not. This is in no way directed at the OP ChrisLynch as he was asking a legitimate question and was polite about it. Cheers Edited January 29, 2014 by Latchmor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14910 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 The install process has zero options by design. Lots of options during install just complicate things for most users. But, as stated above, we install where we do for a very good reason. Our automatic and "hands-free" update process is a big part of our design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshFink 19 Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 I think this is inconvenient for some but after using other programs, automatic, no hands updates sounds great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigjohn 655 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 If I could, I would create a C:\MediaBrowser folder and install everything MB there. It would just make it easier for me to find instead of digging down into the folder structure. I understand the reasoning behind using the AppData path, but there also reasons to not use that path. Some domain environments use Windows roaming profiles, so all of the MB info would be dragged around to every computer you logged onto in the domain. Some people are also locking down the ability of applications to run from the appdata area because of malwares like Cryptolocker. I am NOT complaining or advocating a change. If it works, let it be. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14910 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 You will eventually be able to do that if you wish but, again, you'll have to be sure you have your permissions set up properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beardyname 194 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Seeing as it does not take up any space and the location of metadata is configurable, I don't actually give a damn ^^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koleckai Silvestri 1150 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 (edited) I would like a custom installation path myself. I wouldn't put it into Program Files (x86) though as that doesn't fit my needs. I would however install it outside the appdata path. Most games have automatic updates so I have them installed in a \games\ directory. UAC doesn't get in the way of automatic updates that way. My personal preference is to not install applications in the appdata folders. Not uninstalling MediaBrowser due to it though. I really do appreciate the options for the custom cache and imagesbyname folders. I used that to move my imagesbyname folder to reside within my media disks. Left my cache on the SSD though. Edited January 29, 2014 by Wayne Luke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14910 Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 We are working towards a portable install option but, realize, anyone who does this will take things into their own hands as far as updates go. I'm not looking forward to all the people asking why the updates don't work and then find out it is because they installed somewhere that the user running the server cannot write to. But, we basically will need the portability for linux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wkearney99 0 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Why is it not at least in the Local directory? Roaming is entirely wrong for a server-related program. While installing into the Program Files directories can be problematic due to greater security features, that too could be overcome as many programs do this everyday (including ones that auto-update). The programming gets gnarlier but it ain't impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke 37050 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Well we do accept pull requests. Although anyone who takes this will also have to get a good size test group together Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14910 Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Why is it not at least in the Local directory? Roaming is entirely wrong for a server-related program. While installing into the Program Files directories can be problematic due to greater security features, that too could be overcome as many programs do this everyday (including ones that auto-update). The programming gets gnarlier but it ain't impossible. No, it isn't impossible but, when we did that we always had some percentage of people who had problems. Since we changed it, no one has a problem with permissions. Given everything else we have to work on, we took this path of least resistance here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ripper 5 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I'm just offering an idea here, as I've already come to grips with the install path, but would love to see other options. Can't the initial install procedure apply modify permissions for the "Users" group to the install path and all subfolders? It would require admin rights for initial installation, but updating should work fine for any user that's logged in. A Program Files/ProgramData model would be awesome, eliminating all user-specific folders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nydude25 11 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I'm sure that very small percentage of your users are experienced like some of us. As an industry it will improve over time this is an incremental process. Not all of the industry. Google seems to be going in the opposite direction and has caused debate with their Chrome browser and its automatic updates. They do not follow best practices but they justify or rationalize it in the name of security updating. But they also use it to push changes in the application such as the recent ban on user installed extensions. All extensions for Chrome now must go through the Google store system to work with Chrome. Its a slippery slope when the user loses control and cant accept or deny changes to their machine caused by these automatic updates. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denethor 90 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 We all know that all the google apps are just simple but at the same time a giant spywares Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14910 Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 I'm just offering an idea here, as I've already come to grips with the install path, but would love to see other options. Can't the initial install procedure apply modify permissions for the "Users" group to the install path and all subfolders? It would require admin rights for initial installation, but updating should work fine for any user that's logged in. A Program Files/ProgramData model would be awesome, eliminating all user-specific folders. Of course, and that is what we used to do. But, in some environments it simply didn't work. Either due to the system setup or the user refusing the prompt when it came up. The net effect was those users having trouble running the program and us spending support time helping them diagnose and fix it. Since changing our approach that has never happened. Ease of use is trumping everything else here. So, at this time, we aren't looking to change the approach. But, as Luke said, we are open source and if someone wants to come up with a foolproof way to make all this work then great, but it needs to be foolproof and extremely well tested and it needs to somehow still work with all the existing installations. Microsoft's own ClickOnce applications install into this same type of location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denethor 90 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 It would require admin rights for initial installation, but updating should work fine for any user that's logged in. Yes admin rights would require but this is by design for multi user network operating system. Which is a good thing I've been working more than 15 years in Enterprise's as a manager of Windows Server/Client environments. Below examples are from real life: - Hey Windows guy we have developed a ActiveX Control but it requires "Run unsigned ActiveX programs" on all Internet Explorer Zone settings. Could you please enable it? (-Hell No) - Hey we have spend several $100K's on this IBM sh*t but it requires Domain Admin Privileges to run, could you please give us a password? (-Hell No!) - Hey man as a DBA I need to mess with Windows Cluster services, I need local Admin Rights. Can you give me one? (-Hell no) etc... People are always prefer the easier way; this perfectly natural. I can also perfectly understand the cost,time, support issues etc. And respect that. But eventually you will need to follow more of the security best practices for Windows Application development. (Not saying that you are doing this, don't get me wrong) Because we as a Enterprise customers pushing Microsoft really hard for less vulnerable OS. And believe me, they listen us. For example in near future Microsoft may block network access for binaries from those directories. Programs are belongs to Program Files for their safety Those user directories are belongs to user stuff and more vulnerable for malwares. Of course I'm little bit exaggerating the things here. Home users or home operating system environments requires more flexibility and less security by nature. I'm sure that very small percentage of your users are experienced like some of us. As an industry it will improve over time this is an incremental process. Just my 2 cents about the discussion here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CashMoney 94 Posted August 5, 2014 Share Posted August 5, 2014 You could "move" the dir with the command line MKLINK and create a junction. This is how I originally moved all the data before custom paths were available due to having a teeny tiny SSD with Windows on it, and not enough room. Before Steam allowed you to create secondary libraries in other locations, I used to create junctions for my games too. There is a program to add it to the right click menu, but I can't for the life of me remember it's name off the top of my head. You can Google for it, but basically you're creating a shortcut from the original location of the files to the new physical location of the files; the system is happy because it just see's the files in the original location, and the end user is happy because the files are physically in a location they want them to be in. However, I've never tried to create a junction into the Program Files dir or the root of C:. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavmort 0 Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 (edited) How do I get secondary users under windows 8 to be able to use MB Theater? I've used Media Browser from the very beginning and have never had a problem till windows 8. I don't have WMC on windows 8 so I am trying to run MB Theater. It only install on my (admin) profile and none of the kids profiles. I've scoured the forums and I can't figure out how to get it to work on other profiles. Access for all users is more important than auto update for me. Thanks Edited August 14, 2014 by cavmort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebr 14910 Posted August 14, 2014 Share Posted August 14, 2014 MBT is deliberately designed to install at the user level. So, if you have multiple Windows users that need to use it, just install it under each one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now