5 ms·

I struggle with all the alternate 'installation managers' for Windows. Microsoft has already done this with their MSI system (Although even they have basically

I struggle with all the alternate 'installation managers' for Windows. Microsoft has already done this with their MSI system (Although even they have basically abandoned it in favour of the APPX stuff). MSI was a good format, and could be installed silently with the right switches (/q/b), support alternate installation options via MST files, and even patches via MSP files. Even the specific DLL dependencies ('DLL Hell') got fixed via manifest files/attributes. Microsoft published the MSI specification early on, and encouraged everyone to support it. However, the core problem with Windows software is there isn't a primary software repository for all approved and tested software, like there is for *nix platforms. Ideally that's what needs to be fixed first before yet more client-end installers get created. To fix this, based on the current landscape, all third-party client-end installers need to support all existing third-party repositories. Even better, everyone agrees on a standard JSON format (or whatever) for their repository manifest and all third-party installers understand that. Then just like Linux et al. all you have to do is add the new repository URL to your installers config, and all the packages advertised within are immediately available. It seems really simple to fix - but people have to co-operate.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago
I think the real problem is Microsoft doesn't care. It's probably a higher priority than Windows Backup, but only just.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
stewbrew 8y ago
"the core problem with Windows software is there isn't a primary software repository for all approved and tested software" scoop uses portable binaries provided from the original source. For many people that's good enough. Maybe chocolatery is more to your taste.
stefan_ 8y ago
MSI was the format where you needed to keep the original installer around merely to uninstall it and they eventually hacked-in a stripped down version of MSI installers because well, someone realized how ridiculous that was? Good riddance.
- pjmlp 8y ago
  Not really, that was badly written installers in InstallShield and friends.
  - vetinari 8y ago
    Windows installer made a copy of the msi, just in case it was needed later and put it into C:\Windows\Installer. It kept it even for packages, that were uninstalled or superseded.
    - lpcvoid 8y ago
      On my Win10 system, that directory is ~600mb, ~300 files and 17 directories. Not advocating for this system, I just don't think it's that much of a problem.
      - vetinari 8y ago
        I have a Win8.1 system, where it is 40 GB. That crossed the annoyance line some time ago.
    - pjmlp 8y ago
      I never remember having seen such folder. Having been doing Windows development since Windows 3.0. I have been hit by such errors, which on my case were caused by .exe installers.
      - vetinari 8y ago
        It is hidden+system, owned by builtin\Administrators and competes with WinSxS, who will take most of your diskspace.
        pjmlp 8y ago
        I stand corrected. All those years without noticing it. :\
tallanvor 8y ago
Well, there is the Microsoft store, but it's clear that moderation is difficult to keep bad or worthless apps out. Beyond that, there probably isn't a huge demand for a command-line installer or other package manager. Most consumers wouldn't know how to install via the command line, and most enterprise environments will have images with necessary software preinstalled or push them out through SCCM or other such management interface. All of these attempts at alternate installers really only seem to appeal to developers, but in the scheme of things, there are other more pressing concerns even for them.
- static_noise 8y ago
  How would I add another repository to the microsoft store in order to have nightly builds of a specific app or third party apps available? Is there an apt-like command line interface for the microsoft store?
  - zeusk 8y ago
    This is technically possible (kinda how enterprise apps are deployed) but is not exposed to consumers fwik.
yellowbuilding 8y ago
I have been using scoop for about 1.5 years and it’s wonderful. I contribute to it as well. It’s simple, robust, reliable. I might prefer it over what you’re suggesting for Windows. I just can’t imagine Microsoft getting that right.
yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
I agree, but for what it’s worth, scoop manifests handle all of these pretty easily. I have contributed a handful of auto-updating manifests, including numerous installation managers, and I check in regularly but none have required modifications so far. Scoop is, I believe, the best solution we can hope for.
- rwcorbett 8y ago
  agreed - it is the best one that I have found thus far.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
I have a different fix: don't use installers at all and release applications as portable self-contained directories. You don't need fancy support for silent installs, you just push the directory and you're done. No need for a middleman repo either.
- gesman 8y ago
  Second that. Every single Windows proggie pollutes so many different directories including system ones as well as registry entries - so it became impossible to clean OS and leaving it cluttered with leftovers all over the places. Windows uninstallers and cleaners became a whole industry by itself.
- kodablah 8y ago
  For software targeting more advanced users and with limited dependencies, I agree. But if your software has large shared runtime requirements, is expected to be used by simple users expecting an icon, has non-trivial installation checks, etc, an installer is the way to go.
stuaxo 8y ago
I've been using chocolatey for a while, it seems to be the closest thing to something like this.
- nlawalker 8y ago
  Many (most?) chocolatey packages are essentially two lines of plaintext configuration: the URL of an MSI, and the command line arguments used to run it silently. Chocolatey does add some value on top - metadata, tracking what you've installed - but all that is entirely separate from the MSI database that Windows already uses to do the same sort of stuff. The biggest value of the main chocolatey package repo, in my opinion, is that it's effectively a curated list of direct download links for MSIs. EDIT: I forgot that it can also verify checksums, there is obviously value to that.
  - Jaruzel 8y ago
    I did not know this... I might actually have a proper look at Chocolatey now. Thanks!
WorldMaker 8y ago
Microsoft has been pushing all the good parts of MSI into the APPX stuff which is now called MSIX. It has had support for silent installs, options, patches upgraded or added over the last couple Windows releases, with I think a last few pieces scheduled for the next Windows release. The MSIX format is supposed to support everything MSI currently does soon, and has preview support for even Windows 7. > However, the core problem with Windows software is there isn't a primary software repository for all approved and tested software, like there is for -nix platforms. Ideally that's what needs to be fixed first before yet more client-end installers get created. This is certainly a goal of the Microsoft Store, to be a central/primary software repository for Windows software. Sure, it has the "ugliness" of also including all the fun monetization things that -nix can often ignore because FLOSS doesn't necessarily have to worry about paying the bills in quite the same way. But it seems silly to me to turn down the usefulness of a "primary software repository" simply because it also doubles as a retail store for proprietary/closed-source software.

tonyedgecombe 8y ago

I think the real problem is Microsoft doesn't care. It's probably a higher priority than Windows Backup, but only just.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

stewbrew 8y ago

"the core problem with Windows software is there isn't a primary software repository for all approved and tested software" scoop uses portable binaries provided from the original source. For many people that's good enough. Maybe chocolatery is more to your taste.

stefan_ 8y ago

MSI was the format where you needed to keep the original installer around merely to uninstall it and they eventually hacked-in a stripped down version of MSI installers because well, someone realized how ridiculous that was? Good riddance.

pjmlp 8y ago
Not really, that was badly written installers in InstallShield and friends.
- vetinari 8y ago
  Windows installer made a copy of the msi, just in case it was needed later and put it into C:\Windows\Installer. It kept it even for packages, that were uninstalled or superseded.
  - lpcvoid 8y ago
    On my Win10 system, that directory is ~600mb, ~300 files and 17 directories. Not advocating for this system, I just don't think it's that much of a problem.
    - vetinari 8y ago
      I have a Win8.1 system, where it is 40 GB. That crossed the annoyance line some time ago.
  - pjmlp 8y ago
    I never remember having seen such folder. Having been doing Windows development since Windows 3.0. I have been hit by such errors, which on my case were caused by .exe installers.
    - vetinari 8y ago
      It is hidden+system, owned by builtin\Administrators and competes with WinSxS, who will take most of your diskspace.
      - pjmlp 8y ago
        I stand corrected. All those years without noticing it. :\

tallanvor 8y ago

Well, there is the Microsoft store, but it's clear that moderation is difficult to keep bad or worthless apps out. Beyond that, there probably isn't a huge demand for a command-line installer or other package manager. Most consumers wouldn't know how to install via the command line, and most enterprise environments will have images with necessary software preinstalled or push them out through SCCM or other such management interface. All of these attempts at alternate installers really only seem to appeal to developers, but in the scheme of things, there are other more pressing concerns even for them.

static_noise 8y ago
How would I add another repository to the microsoft store in order to have nightly builds of a specific app or third party apps available? Is there an apt-like command line interface for the microsoft store?
- zeusk 8y ago
  This is technically possible (kinda how enterprise apps are deployed) but is not exposed to consumers fwik.

yellowbuilding 8y ago

I have been using scoop for about 1.5 years and it’s wonderful. I contribute to it as well. It’s simple, robust, reliable. I might prefer it over what you’re suggesting for Windows. I just can’t imagine Microsoft getting that right.

yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago

I agree, but for what it’s worth, scoop manifests handle all of these pretty easily. I have contributed a handful of auto-updating manifests, including numerous installation managers, and I check in regularly but none have required modifications so far. Scoop is, I believe, the best solution we can hope for.

rwcorbett 8y ago
agreed - it is the best one that I have found thus far.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago

I have a different fix: don't use installers at all and release applications as portable self-contained directories. You don't need fancy support for silent installs, you just push the directory and you're done. No need for a middleman repo either.

gesman 8y ago
Second that. Every single Windows proggie pollutes so many different directories including system ones as well as registry entries - so it became impossible to clean OS and leaving it cluttered with leftovers all over the places. Windows uninstallers and cleaners became a whole industry by itself.
kodablah 8y ago
For software targeting more advanced users and with limited dependencies, I agree. But if your software has large shared runtime requirements, is expected to be used by simple users expecting an icon, has non-trivial installation checks, etc, an installer is the way to go.

stuaxo 8y ago

I've been using chocolatey for a while, it seems to be the closest thing to something like this.

nlawalker 8y ago
Many (most?) chocolatey packages are essentially two lines of plaintext configuration: the URL of an MSI, and the command line arguments used to run it silently. Chocolatey does add some value on top - metadata, tracking what you've installed - but all that is entirely separate from the MSI database that Windows already uses to do the same sort of stuff. The biggest value of the main chocolatey package repo, in my opinion, is that it's effectively a curated list of direct download links for MSIs. EDIT: I forgot that it can also verify checksums, there is obviously value to that.
- Jaruzel 8y ago
  I did not know this... I might actually have a proper look at Chocolatey now. Thanks!

WorldMaker 8y ago

Microsoft has been pushing all the good parts of MSI into the APPX stuff which is now called MSIX. It has had support for silent installs, options, patches upgraded or added over the last couple Windows releases, with I think a last few pieces scheduled for the next Windows release. The MSIX format is supposed to support everything MSI currently does soon, and has preview support for even Windows 7. > However, the core problem with Windows software is there isn't a primary software repository for all approved and tested software, like there is for -nix platforms. Ideally that's what needs to be fixed first before yet more client-end installers get created. This is certainly a goal of the Microsoft Store, to be a central/primary software repository for Windows software. Sure, it has the "ugliness" of also including all the fun monetization things that -nix can often ignore because FLOSS doesn't necessarily have to worry about paying the bills in quite the same way. But it seems silly to me to turn down the usefulness of a "primary software repository" simply because it also doubles as a retail store for proprietary/closed-source software.