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 340525
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Biased summary
by lemur2 on Tue 16th Dec 2008 23:09 UTC in reply to "Biased summary"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

On Windows, application don't ask you for upgrade each time you launch it, but each time there was an upgrade.


That was an exageration for the situation in Windows, it is true. The Windows scenario is poor enough without the need to exagerate it.

However, if you want an example of bias, look at what was claimed for Linux:
Linux users claim to have the holy grail of application management, but they're also wrong. Yes, they have this elegant central updating and management utility, but in return, you are limited by how up-to-date your distributor is keeping its repositories - or how much stuff they put in there. It's quite annoying to know that a new version of Pidgin is out, but your distributor hasn't packaged it yet. On top of that, these central updating mechanisms in Linux are - still - notorious for making a mess out of things during more complicated update sets.


My goodness! How inaccurate and biased can one get?

Examples: "you are limited by how up-to-date your distributor is keeping its repositories - or how much stuff they put in there"

"but your distributor hasn't packaged it yet"

These baseless claims utterly ignore sites like this:

http://www.getdeb.net/
and it ignores as well application home pages like this:
http://download.openoffice.org/other.html#en-US
or this:
http://www.getfirefox.net/

Consider that this is the equivalent of the ONLY method of installing software on Windows or a Mac, why utterly ignore the fact that a similar method applies to Linux? If one uses gedbi or equivalent GUI to install such a downloaded package, or one uses dpkg or equivalent from the command line to do the same, then the same "uninstall" methods are applicable as packages loaded from the repositories (caveat: keep in mind that update notifiers wont work for packages installed outside of the repositories).

BTW: the google search that Thom included as evidence that package managers make a "mess" shows up hits from years ago. Personally ... I've never hit a snag that couldn't be resolved fairly easily.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Biased summary
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 16th Dec 2008 23:42 in reply to "RE: Biased summary"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

These baseless claims utterly ignore sites like this:


Except... You really shouldn't install applications from outside your distribution's official repositories. A common, and wise advice from many Linux users.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Biased summary
by lemur2 on Wed 17th Dec 2008 01:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Biased summary"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"These baseless claims utterly ignore sites like this:
Except... You really shouldn't install applications from outside your distribution's official repositories. A common, and wise advice from many Linux users. "

True. Correct. Installing applications from outside the distribution's official repositories has two disadvantages compared to installing applications via the repositories:

(1) The application packages that one downloads outside of the repositories cannot be signed, and
(2) Application packages that one downloads outside of the repositories are not covered by the update notifier.

Because of those two reasons, it is a better idea to wait until a new package appears in your distributions repositories ... or in additional repositories such as developer personal repositories or third party repositories or backport repositories where it will often appear far quicker.

http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/ubuntu-linux-install-kde-42/
http://hehe2.net/linux-general/try-kde-42-now-in-ubuntu/

However ... none of that means that application packages outside of the repositories do not exist.

That fact in turn means that the following criticisms you made of installation of software on Linux systems:

Examples: "you are limited by how up-to-date your distributor is keeping its repositories - or how much stuff they put in there"
"but your distributor hasn't packaged it yet"

are both invalid criticisms.

You are not limited by how up-to-date your distributor is keeping its offical repositories, and you do not have to wait for your distributor to package a new version before you can have a means to install it that is equivalent to installing the same software on Windows or Mac.

Edited 2008-12-17 02:01 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5