4 ms·
The client downloads the list of packages from the update servers, compares the available versions to the installed versions and offers (if the user so chooses)
by ptx 6y ago
The client downloads the list of packages from the update servers, compares the available versions to the installed versions and offers (if the user so chooses) to download and install the newer versions (or a subset). (And there is some additional logic around resolving conflicts, all on the client, using metadata downloaded from the servers.)
You might argue that this is not "efficiently", but it works great and in my personal experience a lot faster, more reliably and more predictably than Windows Update.
(As for sudo: No, unlike e.g. the .NET Core CLI and winget, system utilities don't normally contain extra unrelated functionality to silently collect user data and send it off somewhere. Perhaps one reason Microsoft don't hear more complaints about it from developers is that nobody imagines that you would do such a thing. It's normally not done.)
- TeMPOraL 6y agoYeah, to extend the thought about sudo - which, for clarity, is a command you use to execute something as a superuser on your system; it's not a package manager, but something you often prefix when interacting with one. So sudo, depending on system configuration, does log interactions, but does it locally. The rationale behind this is that Linux heritage is one of multi-user systems, so you want to have the owner/sysadmin of that system to be able to audit the use of superuser privileges by regular users, in particular when they break something. In a Linux system installed on a desktop, or a server you admin yourself, the user is the only person who can access these logs anyway, so it's no different than any other system log. That these logs would be automatically sent to third parties is unthinkable - in the sense that nobody would even think an operating system would dare send sensitive information out like that.