The two download options are confusing and without explanation regarding "WinFsp"

[jumper444]

Please agree to the following

• I have searched existing issues for duplicates
• I agree to follow this project's Code of Conduct

Summary

There are two download choices (other than portable) but no clear explanation or reasoning of the difference.

What software is involved?

Download section of website says:
"This installer includes the third-party driver WinFsp. You can also download the MSI installer without dependencies."

Hmm...ok. Well this makes zero sense off the bat.

Thus a person has two possible download options? So now I try to figure out what this means. (Cryptomator didn't USED to have 2 choices and I'm already confused and this tells me nothing else.)

As a computer/tech person (I'm not 'general' audience level) I read and stare at that text and have zero idea what it means or what choice I'm supposed to make and the consequences or differences thereof. This is bad user interaction.

Saying that an installer doesn't have a DEPENDENCY is not the same as saying the resulting INSTALLATION has different FUNCTIONALITY. So then I go glance at the WinFsp page it seems to be doing some sort of entire alternate file-system-thing. Um, Ok. But what does that mean? How is it different when I get the MSI without 'dependencies". Why is this WinFsp thing and option included in one and not the other? and do I need it? What breaks if I dont have it? Am I better off without it?

Am I supposed to now go research the WinFsp framework now to answer the question? etc etc
(Maybe there is a page elsewhere on the Cryptomator site explaining this, but it shouldn't be 'elsewhere', it should be right there at the download.)

My suggestion is that this choice/situation be briefly explained on the download page in plain english. Why the two downloads, what does 'no dependencies' mean (since by definition it doesn't mean functionality changes, it just means something is 'all encompassing' or 'self contained'). Can we make this better so people know how to choose? Thanks.

Volume Type

Dokany

Steps to Reproduce

.

Expected Behavior

.

Actual Behavior

.

Reproducibility

Always

Relevant Log Output

.

Anything else?

.

[overheadhunter]

WinFSP is an optional but recommended component. As you claim to be using Dokany, you would not need it.

We try to steer new users to use WinFSP, hence the big download button containing the "full package", while the MSI deserves only a footnote, as it is only interesting for people who know what an MSI is used for and specifically look for it. These are not two equivalent alternatives.

But you're right, maybe we should remove the reference altogether, as it is irrelevant for end-users.

[jumper444]

WinFSP is an optional but recommended component.

But why?

As you claim to be using Dokany, you would not need it.

But why?

We try to steer new users to use WinFSP

But why?

it is only interesting for people who know what an MSI is used for and specifically look for it.

My decades understanding is simply that MSI (*.msi) is microsoft's installer vs most other .exe's whereby people use non-microsoft installers. My lifelong understanding is that the end result is the same, but you indicated it isn't and some specifically look for .MSI and I dont know why. (Bulk cloning and patching of corporate environments using MSFT tools?)

I only suggested (and still) that I dont know what the WinFSP/MSI choice is or why it matters even though the text of the page is alerting me to something and then now i'm suddenly concerned about the choice without knowing what the choice is.

[overheadhunter]

why? why? why?

FUSE/WinFSP and Dokany are interchangeable alternatives. You can install neither, any or both, depending on what technology you want to use for mounting the virtual volume. If you don't have any specific requirement towards the volume, we recommend FUSE/WinFSP, as it serves most average use cases.

My decades understanding is simply that MSI (*.msi) is microsoft's installer vs most other .exe's whereby people use non-microsoft installers. My lifelong understanding is that the end result is the same, but you indicated it isn't and some specifically look for .MSI and I dont know why.

Well I can't tell you why they are looking for an .msi. Maybe they're professional system admins planning mass deployments. Maybe they need it for downstream packaging, which facilitates its own mechanism for installing dependencies, such as for chocolatey or winget.

I can only tell you the limitations of .msi installers: With your decades of experience, I trust you have already seen installers that spawn subinstallers (e.g. for DirectX or the Visual C++ Runtime). Well, .msi can't include such subinstallers due to limitations in the package format. .exe installers on the other hand can do whatever they want. As I already said before, we want to provide a default setup that works for most users, so we want to include WinFSP. That's why the big button points to the exe installer and the .msi is just for people how know they have reason to use it.

[ACRU-BEAST]

Gracias, tenía la misma duda.