Unlike say, some random software company that says their service pack, hotfix or other update won't trash your machine.
MSFT/Adobe/others come to mind... On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 14:48, Steven Peck <[email protected]> wrote: > 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/> ~ > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
