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 340326
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
hmmm..so why..
by zelrik on Mon 15th Dec 2008 15:59 UTC
zelrik
Member since:
2008-02-16

Why people write stuff they dont have a clue about. The repositories ARE NOT limited by the provider of the distribution for Linux. There are PPA's (Personnal Package Archives) from where you can get more bleeding edge versions of your softwares. Those PPA are basically 3rd party repositories and their use is more than trivial. Of course for Linux, some softwares are more or less available in PPA's depending on how popular and complete they are and THAT IS FINE. Who wants to install a 0.3 beta anyway but a beta-tester?... Do you guys ever install Beta's coming from microsoft? No because they dont even release them.

Edited 2008-12-15 15:59 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: hmmm..so why..
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Dec 2008 22:35 in reply to "hmmm..so why.."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Why people write stuff they dont have a clue about. The repositories ARE NOT limited by the provider of the distribution for Linux. There are PPA's (Personnal Package Archives) from where you can get more bleeding edge versions of your softwares. Those PPA are basically 3rd party repositories and their use is more than trivial. Of course for Linux, some softwares are more or less available in PPA's depending on how popular and complete they are and THAT IS FINE. Who wants to install a 0.3 beta anyway but a beta-tester?... Do you guys ever install Beta's coming from microsoft? No because they dont even release them.


You don't even require a repository in order to use the Linux package managers. All you need is a downloadable package file. Typical formats are .deb and .rpm.

For example ... download a .deb package file, save it somewhere, open the file manager, navigate to where you saved it, and then double-click the .deb file.

Normally ... a program similar to this will run ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gdebi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdebi.png

Note how it will find and install from normal repositories any other dependencies of the .deb package that you do not already have installed.

(for KDE there is a similar applet for adept).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: hmmm..so why..
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 16th Dec 2008 01:00 in reply to "RE: hmmm..so why.."
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You don't even require a repository in order to use the Linux package managers. All you need is a downloadable package file. Typical formats are .deb and .rpm.

For example ... download a .deb package file, save it somewhere, open the file manager, navigate to where you saved it, and then double-click the .deb file.


...after which the package manager will check the... repositories for dependencies. In other words, no matter what you do, you still need repositories. If you've downloaded a .deb, saved it for later, and then you try to install it when you're offline (a common situation for me, I travel a lot), you're fcuked. Great system, yeah.

Anyway, most of you have completely missed the point. You are arguing over which method is the best, while to me, that sounds like debating what method of suicide you'd prefer.

When will you people get it into your heads that no matter the platform today, software management is a damn pain in the ass, it's never intuitive, it's never easy, always filled with caveats, and in general a sub-optimal, medieval experience.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: hmmm..so why..
by mabhatter on Tue 16th Dec 2008 06:03 in reply to "hmmm..so why.."
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

I'd agree, author doesn't know what he's saying. If you look at the typical Ubuntu install they give you half a dozen repositories to install from and you can turn them on and off. You can even add third party repositories like the famous PLF (penguin liberation front) or Automatix and the package manager software takes all the versions into account when installing software. Remove a repo and all the software versions (at least try) to drop back to the next level you have installed. It's not perfect, it still works on scripts, not working with the actual system you have, but it's way better than the other guys.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: hmmm..so why..
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Dec 2008 07:31 in reply to "RE: hmmm..so why.."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I'd agree, author doesn't know what he's saying. If you look at the typical Ubuntu install they give you half a dozen repositories to install from and you can turn them on and off. You can even add third party repositories like the famous PLF (penguin liberation front) or Automatix and the package manager software takes all the versions into account when installing software.


Just a couple of quibbles.

PLF is for mandriva. The Ubuntu equivalent is Medibuntu.

http://www.medibuntu.org/

If you include the medibuntu repository in your apt sources, and add the medibuntu key (which AFAIK should be OK if you are not resident in the US), then it will become a well-integrated part of the package management system, with updates and every good feature.

Automatix essentially provides a similar service to Medibuntu, but it does so outside of the Ubuntu package management system. Not recommended.

Edited 2008-12-16 07:35 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3