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 340353
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Never Happen
by ichi on Mon 15th Dec 2008 18:20 UTC in reply to "Never Happen"
ichi
Member since:
2007-03-06

MS doesn't have to distribute anything, the point is having a package manager as a centralized tool to install and update software, not necessarily from repositories. There's no need to download photoshop if you already have the CDs.

Portage, gentoo's package manager, is able to install loads of propietary products and as far as I know no one has signed on anything.

And anyway, even if they were going for a repository based package manager they could set it up so MS didn't have to distribute anything, giving users the ability to add third party repositories (adobe, sun, blizzard...).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Never Happen
by BluenoseJake on Mon 15th Dec 2008 21:10 in reply to "RE: Never Happen"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

They aren't going to trust a third party anymore either. And adding repositories to a package manager is no easier than going to a website and clicking on the download button, or putting in that photoshop CD and clicking install.

There has to be some benefit to do something like this, and there isn't any, for anyone. Commercial software developers aren't going to sign on, it doesn't make life any easier for consumers, so what is the point?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Never Happen
by _txf_ on Mon 15th Dec 2008 21:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Never Happen"
_txf_ Member since:
2008-03-17

Microsoft could institute a "my way or the highway" . They certainly have the power to do so, and have attempted to before (UAC comes to mind). Whilst this has had mixed results, eventually developers will get the idea (however much they complain) and eventually in one or two windows releases nobody will be complaining anymore.

Apps that still refuse will eventually become an annoyance in the eyes of users who see an easy centralized system as opposed to having to dig through the web to find prog X for task X.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Never Happen
by ichi on Mon 15th Dec 2008 23:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Never Happen"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

It's quite different than going to the website. Adding repositories means the package manager is now also able to not only install but also update and remove all that new software, everything from a single tool (sort of an "add/remove programs", only that consistent with what it's seems to be supposed to do).

For this to work though software should be all distributed using a standard installer (msi?) that the package manager can use. If they keep distributing random binary executables then that would be indeed not much better than the current situation.

If this was set up right it would be trivial to do stuff like finding what program some dll belongs to, or checking if a program would overwrite a existing library before installing.

Not that it's going to happen, but there would be advantages for the user.

Reply Parent Score: 3