Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Dec 2008 15:10 UTC
Editorial states: "Microsoft (or a really smart ISV) should build a full application manager for Windows, similar to what most Linux distributions do today." Most Windows applications come with their own distinctive updating mechanism (much like Mac OS X), instead of having a centralised updating location like most Linux distributions offer. While it certainly wouldn't be harmful for Windows to gain such a feature - the question remains: isn't it time we rethink program installation and management altogether?
Permalink for comment 340381
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

There's a reason there are so many different repositories. Every major Linux distribution keeps their own repositories which only contain software and libraries that are tested and known to work and be compatible with eachother. If you install something from a default Ubuntu repository, you can be certain all of it's dependencies will also be there, and be the right version. Adding more repositories in Ubuntu is as trivial as adding a URL to the end of a list. One line, nothing complicated. In the past three years, I have never had a serious problem with package management, no matter how many third party repositories I've added.

If having the latest version of a program is more important than having the tested version in the repositories, often you'll find the developers have already packaged it and it just hasn't been accepted into the official repositories yet. I normally add the repository of a program I like to keep up to date (like WINE), and then keeping it up to date is exactly the same as keeping any other program up to date. The same update tool is used, it shows up in your list of updates right next to everything else. It's virtually seamless.

Package management in Linux isn't perfect, I'll admit, but in my opinion it is better over-all compared to OS X's and Windows' software installation.

Reply Parent Score: 4