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 340397
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

You moan about all these 1000 different ways. What you seem to forget is that every single user only needs his very one single way for his distro. You seem to forget that it's a pain to distribute an application for each possible way that each distro can manage packages. Windows doesn't have that problem. Each different Linux distro is like a completely different platform because of the community's inability to decide on anything.

For FOSS code this is not a problem. Each distribution will take your source code, compile it with options compatible with that distribution, package it and include it in their repositories. As the author you don't have to do anything at all ... others will help here.

For commercial closed-source code, you are fighting an uphill battle to get that application accepted on Linux anyway. People will nearly always choose an open source equivalent. But even then, if you really want to have a go at a closed-source single-supplier-only application for Linux, then if you follow the LSB API for interfacing to the desktop you then need only really compile your code once and package it in two ways ... as a .deb package and also as an .rpm package ... and you have most Linux system covered.

It is not that hard. Plenty of projects do this.

Reply Parent Score: 3