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 340416
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: why..
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 16th Dec 2008 01:00 UTC in reply to "RE: why.."
Member since:

You don't even require a repository in order to use the Linux package managers. All you need is a downloadable package file. Typical formats are .deb and .rpm.

For example ... download a .deb package file, save it somewhere, open the file manager, navigate to where you saved it, and then double-click the .deb file.

...after which the package manager will check the... repositories for dependencies. In other words, no matter what you do, you still need repositories. If you've downloaded a .deb, saved it for later, and then you try to install it when you're offline (a common situation for me, I travel a lot), you're fcuked. Great system, yeah.

Anyway, most of you have completely missed the point. You are arguing over which method is the best, while to me, that sounds like debating what method of suicide you'd prefer.

When will you people get it into your heads that no matter the platform today, software management is a damn pain in the ass, it's never intuitive, it's never easy, always filled with caveats, and in general a sub-optimal, medieval experience.

Reply Parent Score: 1