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 340440
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: why..
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Dec 2008 07:31 UTC in reply to "RE: why.."
Member since:

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.

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