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 340399
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: hmmm..so why..
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Dec 2008 22:35 UTC 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[3]: hmmm..so why..
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Dec 2008 02:05 in reply to "RE[2]: hmmm..so why.."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"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. "

Well, there is of course a way to work offline as well.

Point your package manager at the repository directory of the install DVD, and carry that DVD with you when off-line.

Ubuntu (? ... perhaps this was Mandriva?) nowadays will even allow you to copy the install DVD repository packages on to the hard disk, so if you have a reasonable size hard disk then you don't even need to carry the install DVD around with you.

If you have a need to work offline often, and anticipate that you may wish to install something later while offline, there is no need at all to get yourself "fcuked" (sic) at all.

Just because one has no chance at all to do this type of thing in Windows doesn't mean that there is no solution for a decent OS.

PS: I have to say Thom, your complaint seems quite contrived. Why would you download something and then not take the extra few seconds to install it then and there, while you were still online?

If I wasn't as generous, I might even be inclined to think you were actively trying to come up with a contrived situation where something about package management wasn't satisfactory.

Edited 2008-12-16 02:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5