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 340457
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Well - if only the source code is available it is still possible to use the package management system.

You just do a ./config and make like you are used to do, but in stead of doing a last "make install" you use the command 'checkinstall'. This command builds a package (rpm or deb - depending on your system), and this package can be used by your package manager.

This reduces the risk you end up with a not-working and installed program. You just use the package manager again to uninstall the non-cooperative program, and it is fully removed. No loose ends and no orphan files.

The only drawback is that you can use the generated rpm or deb package on your system only. On the other hand - most applications you have to compile by hand are most times specially adapted for your needs (otherwise you would be using a general package).

Most distro's have checkinstall in their repository's, so there is no reason why you should not use it.

Reply Parent Score: 2