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?
Thread beginning with comment 340313
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
What? Has the author ever used linux?
by neozeed on Mon 15th Dec 2008 15:26 UTC
Member since:

The answer is NO. It's not broken.

Look the problem with linux has been the 10,000 distros, and the 10,000 ways to do a single action.

The last thing we need is 10,000 variations of the control pannel. I don't want apt-update,pkg_add,yum,yast,.... The linux way is ocmplete chaos.

Frankly it isn't broken, it works just fine, thankyou very much.

Reply Score: -4

Ford Prefect Member since:

I don't know what you are talking about.

Searching: pacman -Ss <keyword>
Installing: pacman -S <packet>
Upgrading: pacman -Syu
Removing: pacman -R <packet>

That's all I ever need. Sometimes I put a 'f' in there.

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.

Talking about 1000 different ways, that's exactly the problem of Windows software installation and upgrading. Every piece of software you find somewhere else, you have to run through a semi-conherent installer program and in the end have a semi-coherent way of hopefully removing it again. And then you have to actively download new versions, etc. if it doesn't come with some sometimes-crappy self-update option.

No central system means that everybody is re-inventing the wheel, some with better success than others.

On the other hand, I don't see packet management like in Linux on a commercial platform soon. There is much more behind it than just a convenient way of keeping your software up-to-date. Think about the tight interplay of all these different libraries. In a commercial work there is no place for this, packet managers would never gain the control they really need to provide a high-quality software system.

Reply Parent Score: 18

Liquidator Member since:

I hear you... Some have tried and have thrown the towel, for lack of time but also for obvious lack of interest from the community (

On the other hand, PC-BSD has thought the other way around and wondered "What if we used a strong Unix system as a base for our OS and integrated an intuitive Windows-like software management system, something anyone could use right away?".

The result is here: - The basic difference between PC-BSD and DesktopBSD is the way they handle software. Over the same period of time, PC-BSD has gained more than 10 times more users, and PC-BSD itself gathers 3/4 of all BSD users.

The Linux way of managing packages is great, has undeniable advantages, but it is not what regular users want, sadly (or fortunately).

Reply Parent Score: 2

dcwrwrfhndz Member since:

The result is here:

You can't rely on bsdstats to compare the various BSDs as PC-BSD has bsdstats enabled by default.
Or do you think that, as example, there are less than 6000 boxes running FreeBSD or just 5 in Canada running OpenBSD?

Reply Parent Score: 7

Gone fishing Member since:

When I run Widows update, Windows updates - plus some of the bundled software (WMP etc) - if I have a big hole in my security because of a third part app or driver tough. In Ubuntu when I click update - everything - the OS and everything I’ve installed through Synaptic is updated.

The 10,000 ways is a red herring in Ubuntu I can use synaptic or apt, Red Hat, Slackware etc are different OSes as is OSX RISCOS etc.

Reply Parent Score: 5