3 ms·

> How is that different to apt, it also has to solve dependencies for packages. Because it is way more complicated than apt: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/w

> How is that different to apt, it also has to solve dependencies for packages. Because it is way more complicated than apt: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/update/how-windows-update-works https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/deployment/update/h...

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago
Is that more complicated? There's a lot of dark in there, but the general steps look comparable. And even if they did over engineer it to their own detriment, I'm not sure how that's supposed to give me more sympathy unless are solving problems that other package managers can't handle, which might be true but certainly isn't obvious to me.
- Someone 8y ago
  I think apt-get installs packages, Windows Update applies patches. In Windows, can have individual updates to a library that fix bugs b1, b2, respectively b3. If so, you can install eight different variants of that library. If, later, a fix for bug b4 is released, its installer must be able to handle each of those variants. The installer also allows you to roll back any of those patches (example: patch b1, patch b3, patch b2, roll back b1, patch b3, patch b1 again) In practice, it’s impossible to handle that combinatorial explosion, so you get updates that require b1 to b3 to be fixed, that require service pack x, etc. However, the system still is designed to handle that. It sort-of must, given that Microsoft occasionally releases updates that it hasn’t tested on all possible hardware configurations, but that (may) solve a specific problem (https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/mrsnrub/2009/05/14/gdr-qfe-ldr-wth/ https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/mrsnrub/2009/05/14/gdr-q... is dated, but, I think, still illustrates the problem)
  - blattimwind 8y ago
    That's my understanding as well. Afaik this is one of the reasons service packs existed, they essentially wrapped a huge number of updates up in one big, complicated blob labelled "this replaces update 329904, 1374663, 3072984, 3979717, ... 7308332, 8042597, 8091796, 9793445 and is applicable to basically all machines", coalescing a big chunk of their dependency tree.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    So instead of applying patches once (but yes, for each variant) at the server end and simply downloading and writing to disk, they create patches (in as many variations as they'd need libraries) and download those, then add the extra step of using potentially low-powered client processing to apply the patches (as binary diffs?) ... seems like something that would have been faster on a 9600 baud download line, and when server processing was more expensive; but for the last decade or so?

yjftsjthsd-h 8y ago

Is that more complicated? There's a lot of dark in there, but the general steps look comparable. And even if they did over engineer it to their own detriment, I'm not sure how that's supposed to give me more sympathy unless are solving problems that other package managers can't handle, which might be true but certainly isn't obvious to me.

Someone 8y ago
I think apt-get installs packages, Windows Update applies patches. In Windows, can have individual updates to a library that fix bugs b1, b2, respectively b3. If so, you can install eight different variants of that library. If, later, a fix for bug b4 is released, its installer must be able to handle each of those variants. The installer also allows you to roll back any of those patches (example: patch b1, patch b3, patch b2, roll back b1, patch b3, patch b1 again) In practice, it’s impossible to handle that combinatorial explosion, so you get updates that require b1 to b3 to be fixed, that require service pack x, etc. However, the system still is designed to handle that. It sort-of must, given that Microsoft occasionally releases updates that it hasn’t tested on all possible hardware configurations, but that (may) solve a specific problem (https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/mrsnrub/2009/05/14/gdr-qfe-ldr-wth/ https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/mrsnrub/2009/05/14/gdr-q... is dated, but, I think, still illustrates the problem)
- blattimwind 8y ago
  That's my understanding as well. Afaik this is one of the reasons service packs existed, they essentially wrapped a huge number of updates up in one big, complicated blob labelled "this replaces update 329904, 1374663, 3072984, 3979717, ... 7308332, 8042597, 8091796, 9793445 and is applicable to basically all machines", coalescing a big chunk of their dependency tree.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  So instead of applying patches once (but yes, for each variant) at the server end and simply downloading and writing to disk, they create patches (in as many variations as they'd need libraries) and download those, then add the extra step of using potentially low-powered client processing to apply the patches (as binary diffs?) ... seems like something that would have been faster on a 9600 baud download line, and when server processing was more expensive; but for the last decade or so?