Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Dec 2008 15:10 UTC
Editorial InternetNews.com 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 340319
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Liquidator
Member since:
2007-03-04

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 (http://winpackman.org).

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: http://bsdstats.org - 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:
2006-05-26

The result is here: http://bsdstats.org

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

Liquidator Member since:
2007-03-04

I didn't know about that. This alone calls the veracity of BSDStats data into question.

Reply Parent Score: 2