4 ms·

> I have an issue with the concept of MAS as a monopoly (the same I've had with Windows Update) What possible problem could you have with Windows Update? WU i

> I have an issue with the concept of MAS as a monopoly (the same I've had with Windows Update) What possible problem could you have with Windows Update? WU is Microsoft's platform for updating it's operating system, core software, and hardware drivers. It isn't a 3rd party app store and doesn't sell anything. In fact they'll host 3rd party drivers for Windows compatible hardware for free as long as the OEM or IHV goes through the proper certification process. It's not even a monopoly because you can disable it and use LanDesk or some other vendor's update platform. Were you just trying to get a dig in at Microsoft because you don't like them?

icebraining 11y ago
It's more likely that parent was talking about Windows Store and just mixed up the names.
- cptskippy 11y ago
  It's possible but I don't think so because he refers to his issues with MAS in the present tense and his issues with WU in the past tense. MAS is 2 years older than the Windows Store and WS is much more permissive in comparison so I find it hard to believe he's had issues with WS for longer than MAS.
toyg 11y ago
Linux has had apt-get for what, 15 years? Microsoft steadfastly refused to implement anything like that for more than a decade, or to open WU in any shape or form to third-parties. All the while, you could get Office updates and IE updates conveniently through WU, but not for any other software, resulting in a proliferation of insecure tools. Whichever motivation they might have had to keep the situation as it was, it resulted in an obtuse and backward monopolistic setup. Eventually they got around building an apt-get clone targeted at opensource developers, and an appstore for Metro apps nobody wants. In 15 years, that's not a great track record.
- cptskippy 11y ago
  APT of 15 years ago is a pretty far cry from APT of today. In fact APT was abandoned by it's original maintainer and kinda sucked until something like 2007 or 2008 when someone else started working on it again. But you know rose colored lenses. WU has never really been about software installation or upgrade, it's focus has always been about bug fixes and security patches. Silverlight and IE are the only apps that have ever been upgradable via WU and for IE that's been a relatively new occurrence primarily driven by getting users off of older insecure versions. So really Silverlight is only app ever distributed via WU. You also have to consider that APT was a solution to the horrible experience of getting and installing Debian libraries and applications which still is a pain in the ass without APT. Windows never had the problem, apps that were available for download were easy to download and install. Keep in mind that APT is for opensource software and doesn't have to deal with authentication and authorization of software licenses. And since WU isn't a store front and most Windows software isn't free, opening up WU to 3rd party apps would probably have come with distribution costs that I would wager most app developers wouldn't pay. So again not a very fair comparison.

icebraining 11y ago

It's more likely that parent was talking about Windows Store and just mixed up the names.

cptskippy 11y ago
It's possible but I don't think so because he refers to his issues with MAS in the present tense and his issues with WU in the past tense. MAS is 2 years older than the Windows Store and WS is much more permissive in comparison so I find it hard to believe he's had issues with WS for longer than MAS.

toyg 11y ago

Linux has had apt-get for what, 15 years? Microsoft steadfastly refused to implement anything like that for more than a decade, or to open WU in any shape or form to third-parties. All the while, you could get Office updates and IE updates conveniently through WU, but not for any other software, resulting in a proliferation of insecure tools. Whichever motivation they might have had to keep the situation as it was, it resulted in an obtuse and backward monopolistic setup. Eventually they got around building an apt-get clone targeted at opensource developers, and an appstore for Metro apps nobody wants. In 15 years, that's not a great track record.

cptskippy 11y ago
APT of 15 years ago is a pretty far cry from APT of today. In fact APT was abandoned by it's original maintainer and kinda sucked until something like 2007 or 2008 when someone else started working on it again. But you know rose colored lenses. WU has never really been about software installation or upgrade, it's focus has always been about bug fixes and security patches. Silverlight and IE are the only apps that have ever been upgradable via WU and for IE that's been a relatively new occurrence primarily driven by getting users off of older insecure versions. So really Silverlight is only app ever distributed via WU. You also have to consider that APT was a solution to the horrible experience of getting and installing Debian libraries and applications which still is a pain in the ass without APT. Windows never had the problem, apps that were available for download were easy to download and install. Keep in mind that APT is for opensource software and doesn't have to deal with authentication and authorization of software licenses. And since WU isn't a store front and most Windows software isn't free, opening up WU to 3rd party apps would probably have come with distribution costs that I would wager most app developers wouldn't pay. So again not a very fair comparison.