*>>shaky foundation?* The DOS, Win16 underpinnings...
Installed base is great when everything has been well laid out. Not so great, when you're bound to earlier suboptimal decisions... -ASB: http://XeeSM.com/AndrewBaker On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Joseph Heaton <[email protected]> wrote: > shaky foundation? > > >>> "Andrew S. Baker" <[email protected]> 6/15/2010 2:42 PM >>> > 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/> ~
