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 340337
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by F_u_X
by F_u_X on Mon 15th Dec 2008 16:42 UTC
Member since:

For this package manager to be as effective as it is on its Linux counterparts (Debian/Redhat/Suse), it basically would have to offer the same functionalty as its counterparts.

I think that Microsoft would have to open its package manager to other software vendors as well (Sun with Openoffice for instance ;) ).

Furthermore, I think that Microsoft would have to actively cooperate with everybody that wants to release packages (open-office, pidgin etc..) by means of this system.

Without Microsoft's active cooporation in developing and maintaining a package manager for Windows (that has the same features as for instance apt-get / yast) such a project is doomed to failure, if you ask me..

There probably are a lot of other reasons for Microsoft not to develop/support/advertize said Package Manager, but I think the "opening up" and the "providing non-Microsoft software to Microsoft customers" requirements are enough to give Steve Balmer a heart attack on their own.

Besides, isn't Windows Update already some sort of Package Manager (for Windows, Office etc)? It doesn't let you install anything, but it kind of does its job of keeping your software up-to-date (most of the time... try googling for "windows update problem")

Reply Score: 3