Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 30th Jul 2008 21:56 UTC, submitted by peskypescado
I have written about if before: updating programs on your computer - if you're not using a Linux distribution, that is - is a total and utter mess. On Windows and Mac OS X, there are roughly four ways of updating applications. The application notifies of new updates, and then downloads them when you click 'yes', the application updates from within the application itself, or the application requires a special update program running in the background. These are all quite annoying, since they interfere with your workflow (as opposed to, say, running "apt-get upgrade" every morning). The fourth method is the official vendor channel, Windows/Microsoft Update in Windows and Software Update in Mac OS X. Paul Ellis argues that to alleviate the mess, Microsoft should open up Microsoft Update for everyone else - and similar arguments are made concerning Apple's Software Update.
Thread beginning with comment 325079
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-04
I don't see the problem... Microsoft just has to implement into Windows a table that any software vendor could use to list an update URL. Then each time you get connected to the Internet, Windows checks each update URL that is listed in the table, and check for available updates from third-party vendors. No need to charge or to verify anything. Microsoft wouldn't have to support third-party apps, if it's a standardised framework, any vendor could add an update entry. It's not less secure than what we have now. Currently, if you have a virus, it doesn't need such a system to download further remote malicious code.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2008-04-15
Companies wouldn't be interested in going through microsoft certification to get the update verefied. the 360 is a prime example of how much dev's do to get the MS stamp.
would you rather spend time and money getting Microsoft to okay the update. or use your own internal testing and release it over the net?
I imagine that Apple may do it a different way but it could be more of the same.
Another thing would be that Microsoft would have to support those apps and i'm sure they'd enjoy the extra costs...
"i installed an update to firefox through windows update and it keeps crashing!!!"
"have you tried internet explorer? it's awesome."
*click*