OSNews

They can also do it for Linux, they've just chosen not to. Don't know why.

"But isn't that the point? That they can do it for Windows and OSX, but not for Linux? It suggests a deficiency in Linux standardization :/"

Its not a "deficiency in Linux" its simply an major advantage of Windows XP. In reality its a trade-off.

Windows is a "static" platform.
One way of doing things "The Microsoft Way"
Rare updates
No Choice of kernel/shell/Wigets/Desktop/API's etc etc.
Backward compatible.

Linux "dynamic platform.
Many alternatives of doing things
Regular updates
Pick and choose suitable components.
Limited backward compatibility.

The reality is Windows XP is simply the best environment, for deploying a *binary* applications across millions of machines, but the price of this is incredibly high. Microsoft talk "innovation" but little happens. It took almost 6 years between versions, and offers marginal improvements, developed by 70,000 employees. They have to live with bad design choices for years. They struggle to get people to *choose* to move to the next version. Its a security maintenance nightmare. It uses *old* technology, and even its latest offering Vista looks too little too late.

Now I haven't compared Linux vs Vista, or a Package Manager to a Single installer. Or even discussed freedesktops standardization of the desktop

... If you're talking about standardization, you'll have to remove Windows from the List.

Windows does -not- enforce any type of standardization on either software or driver installers:
First, Windows does not control the installer - an installer can add/remove/edit/change what-ever it wants... Heck, it can even change the kernel if it wants to.
Second, a Windows installer (even an MSI one) isn't even required (by the OS) to be able to cleanly uninstall itself. (Try removing Visual Studio 2K3/2K5 and you'll see what I mean)
Third, a Windows installer has zero (in numbers - 0) dependency resolving capabilities - leaving it all to the install itself. People speak about RPM hell... Just count the number of MSVC*.dll, MFC*.dll you have on your system and you'll see what I mean.

On the other hand, Linux distributions usually come with OS based software package management which enforce a clean install and uninstall [*] procedures and does the dependency resolving for you.
You may claim that there are way too many types of package management in the Linux world and I won't argue with you. But I rather have too many package managers, then have no package manager what-so-ever.

- Gilboa
* You may screw the package manager by using post-install scripts, but a package that includes such a script will never find its way into an official software repository.

@giloa I tried not to compare package-managers with windows installers

Package managers are hands down one of the greatest things about linux ever. Its on my list of Why Linux is better than windows.

You would be hard pushed to argue that Windows has anything better. Linux by its nature *needs* a package manager. I wouldn't say the same is true for windows.

I did read that Microsoft were going to put trusted third-parties updates as part of Microsoft update, and I have seen one package manager for open-source programs on windows. I'd give the reference, but it turned out to be disappointing.