Nor do they do the applications on a given distribution 'right' all the time. You are essentially relying on 'some' <random maintainer> to be doing something 'right' or at least agreed on and that their choices will not nuke your existing configuration.
Steven Peck On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:42 PM, Andrew S. Baker <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't know that I would say that Linux *always* had package management > going well -- certainly not all distros. > There was a time when Debian was highly regarded *because* of its excellent > package management system. > Redhat was next, and then RPM became a major standard because of their > popularity and subsequent clout. > SuSE was probably the next one in line. > I'm not disagreeing with you as far as where things stand today, but at > best, we can say that Linux started off on a "better" footing, and had less > legacy and installed base to overcome. Such is both the power and drawback > of a large installed base over a shaky foundation. > -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Ben Scott <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:15 PM, Phil Brutsche <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> And why is a solution like this missing from MS operating systems?? >> > >> > It isn't. >> >> Comparing MSI/WSUS to RPM/YUM (or dpkg/APT or...) is really missing >> a lot. MSI is a beast to develop for, it's a compatibility nightmare >> across releases, MSI packages frequently require an interactive >> presence, MSIs vary radically in design, they're a bear to customize, >> the post-install management functions are non-existent, WSUS is a >> completely different framework vs MSI, I could go on and on and on. >> >> > Third parties who refuse to publish catalogs SCUP can use (like Adobe) >> > are as much as fault as anyone else. >> >> So, basically, practically the entire software industry. >> >> Microsoft has been working on Windows software installation for a >> decade plus, and it's still very hairy, especially if you want to also >> support not-the-latest-release-of-Windows. I can't really blame >> third-party developers for (1) resorting to doing their own thing and >> (2) not wanting to jump aboard Microsoft's bandwagon when Microsoft >> themselves weren't done building it yet (and still may not be). >> >> Now, a lot of this is due to the "legacy" Microsoft built with >> classic Windows, which was completely ad hoc. The entire Windows >> software industry ecosystem is built up around that. It's way too >> late to get it right the first time, so now Microsoft has to come up >> with a way to migrate the world's largest installed base to something >> more manageable. That's not going to be quick. Microsoft is still >> responsible, since they built it like that way-back-when, but even >> Microsoft can't change the past. They work in the world they built, >> and it's not realistic to expect them to fix it overnight. >> >> But for those same reasons, expecting the rest of the software >> industry to adopt what Microsoft's latest idea quickly is also >> unrealistic. >> >> In contrast, all the current Linux distributions were designed >> "right" the right time, with strong package management from day one. >> So everything has been and continues to be much smoother on the >> package/update management front. >> >> -- Ben >> >> ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ >> ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
