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 340384
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Manually uninstalling an app in Linux is a nightmare because the parts are in unpredictable places with unintuitive names.

And why would you manually uninstall apps on Linux? It makes no sense at all. If i uninstall an app with my package manager, i just need to do “pacman -R <package_name>”. I can easly see all the files that were installed with “pacman -Ql <package_name>”. If i really want to install apps from the source code (and don't what to use “makepkg”), i just need to do “make uninstall” to uninstall them. Done.

What MacOS does right is bundle all parts of an app together under one directory

I think that's a mess.... having libs, execs, text files, etc... all on the same folder. So, you see... it all depends on point of view.

Upgrades in Linux are a nightmare, because none of the package managers have any clue about how you merge your config file changes with the additions to the config file that come with the update

I speak for myself when i say that i haven't that kind of problem. My package manager don't overwrite config files. If they need to be installed, it just copy the new config files with “.pacnew” extension.

(and believe me, those package managers break).

Humm.... ok, i belive you! lol.

Edited 2008-12-15 21:11 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4