3 ms·
One thing that's always been really annoying about Mac apps has been the lack of an update system. Most Mac apps check for updates on launch, which is spectacu
by ZachPruckowski 16y ago
One thing that's always been really annoying about Mac apps has been the lack of an update system. Most Mac apps check for updates on launch, which is spectacularly annoying, since you're being prompted on the update right when you're most wanting to use the app, and it makes it really hard to make sure you're up to date (since you'd have to manually cycle through your Applications folder).
Compare this to Linux package managers, where a simple "sudo apt-get yada yada" line or two updates everything on your system, whether first party or third party.
Insofar as a Mac App Store solves that problem, great.
- grandalf 16y agoExcellent point. Is it too much to hope that Apple will base its app system software distribution on apt?
- cwg 16y agoYes. (They already have rolled their own, why would they switch to apt?)
- bbatsell 16y agoYes.
- e1ven 16y agoApt is, at it's core, a dependency engine. These apps have no dependencies- It's the whole app package. Also- Why wouldn't they base it on the already successful package distribution platform they have for iOS devices? In short, yes.
- acon 16y agoNo need to use apt. Apt is great for handling dependencies, but when it comes to mac apps there are just two parts: OS X and the app. No dependencies between apps and no dependencies on libraries not part of the OS. Nice and simple.
- stevelosh 16y agoThis is why I love Transmit's update popup. It has three options: * Don't Install * Install Update Now * Install Update on Quit The third option is perfect. I wish more apps did this.
- alextgordon 16y agoI have a fork of Sparkle that does that http://github.com/fileability/resparkle http://github.com/fileability/resparkle