5 ms·

I cannot stress how much I do not want a package manager on windows. If it is like chocolatey (optional) I am ok with it, but if it turns out to be like Linux w

• bombcar 5y ago
  Package managers are wonderful if you stick with what your distribution packages. But once you step outside of that it can get fun real fast. And many things now basically do what Apple does anyway and bundle all libraries, etc with each app - Go does this explicitly I think. Space is cheap.
  • Isthatablackgsd 5y ago
    > Space is cheap. That is subjective. Yes generally the drive storage is cheap. Apple storage in other hands are not cheap at all and charging a premium for it. Looking in MacBook Pro catalog, they are charging $200 for 513 GB SSD to 2 TB for $800. Most of the SSD of that range is in $50 - $150 USD. Drive storage is cheap, Apple storage are not cheap.
    • bombcar 5y ago
      Even at those inflated prices storing Google Chrome itself is $0.20. Most libraries aren't 500mb.
      • tinus_hn 5y ago
        If you want to use your device for about 6 years, you have to consider how big these apps are going to be in 6 years. Google Chrome is not going to be 50mb in 6 years.
        • bombcar 5y ago
          It's 500MB today; would be fun to see a graph of how it has changed over time. It looks like Chrome 1 was 9MB (for Windows)
  • tinus_hn 5y ago
    Wasting somebody else’s space is cheap, especially if you’re the one selling them extra space.
• e12e 5y ago
  > I like Macos's way best to be honest App store/package manager gatekept by vendor + random binaries from the internet?
  • fabioborellini 5y ago
    You forgot to mention the horribly slow, unreliable and opaque pile of Ruby scripts that users tend to herd these random binaries with.
    • rbanffy 5y ago
      Or you can use MacPorts, which is rock solid and never borks your machine. I really don’t know why people use anything else.
      • jamesgeck0 5y ago
        I’m not overly fond of MacPorts dependency on the full-fat Xcode instead of just the Xcode CLI tools.
        • rbanffy 5y ago
          I’d rather have Xcode than something messing with my /usr/bin folder.
• tempfs 5y ago
  Repos and package management are one of the best features of Linux. Sorry that you've worked your way into problematic edge cases but for everyone else this solves way more problems that it creates. A world where you no longer have to update dozens of applications one at a time or worse never at all is a very good thing. This is also a terrific non-SCCM/Windows Store way to provide access to and limit what all can be installed on a Windows box.
  • stayfrosty420 5y ago
    I would hardly call those edge cases, particularly if you use a non-ubuntu distro.
    • tempfs 5y ago
      I use Debian and have three non-Debian repos in my sources.list. No problems thus far. Been using Linux for over a decade and haven't run into any problems from apt/repo's. So I am using what I believe to be a qualified opinion when I say edge case here.
    • rbanffy 5y ago
      I’ve been using Red Hat, CentOS, Debian, and Ubuntu servers for the past 20 years and only once I painted myself in a corner with an EPEL RH repo and, even then, I admit it was totally my fault. I have configured manually dozens of servers, and automatically many thousands, with no significant issues. Only when you fight the distro, you’ll end up caught in an edge case. These things are tested automatically 24x7.
      • _8j50 5y ago
        I used Linux for a slightly shorter time and I always fight the distro because it should do what I want not the other way around. I need to get things done, with or without the distros cooperation and in this case with or without MS.
        • rbanffy 5y ago
• invokestatic 5y ago
  Windows has a manifest system for shared libraries that allow multiple versions of a library to coexist side-by-side. My hope is that this alleviates problems.
• Isthatablackgsd 5y ago
  > I like Macos's way best to be honest. Apple App store or the package manager? Apple does not have a package manager from my understanding and I uses macOS daily. I don't like the approach with the App Store since there are some FOSS that are charging a fee to use their apps in the App Store. I understand it was due to Apple's Developer fee. App Store is not a package manager, it is an application online store in the same vein with Google Play Store & Microsoft Store. If you are talking about the package manager, then which manager you are referring to? Brew, MacPorts, Nix? I uses Brew daily and only once have to add one repo (using MBA for less than a year) due to external plugin that the app use which it's easy to add in the command line.
  • _8j50 5y ago
    Dmg images is what I meant. Very user friendly, you can download and run one from the vendor site too.
• ASalazarMX 5y ago
  > then you have dependency resolution issues because that's what the package and version needs and the upstream and down stream devs need to sort it out I think your problem is that you're adding too many third-party repos. The distribution repos can be severely outdated, maybe even buggy, but fortunately most third-party repos are not troublesome. If you have one that is, don't add it, try an alternate installation medium, or consider a different application.
  • rbanffy 5y ago
    > The distribution repos can be severely outdated, maybe even buggy They may be outdated (as in RHEL or Debian Stable) but even old versions get regular bug fixes. And RHEL and Debian and its family pretty much run the world (except the parts written in COBOL running under CICS and z/OS)
    • ASalazarMX 5y ago
      Buggy includes non-security bugs, like a flaw in the UI that upstream already corrected in a newer version, or a feature you need that was compiled out by the packager.
      • rbanffy 5y ago
        In that case, I’d suggest either paying someone to backport the fix and offer it to the distro, or rolling your own repo with your package and a minimal set of dependencies (the more minimal, the better) and live with your almost-distro. The beauty of open source is that you can always work your way out of a situation.
  • _8j50 5y ago
    Yes, and can you imagine a windows install by regular users without too many 3rd party repos? If you do then I suspect you may not understand how vast and complex the software ecosystem is in Windows land.
• curt15 5y ago
  Installing software on MacOS is only convenient when it is distributed as self-contained .app bundle. Only self-contained GUI apps are distributed this way. Managing software that comes in ".pkg" files is strictly worse than using Linux packages. Unlike on Linux, there is no dependency tracking or interface for un-installing such software.
• michaelmrose 5y ago
  This is an example of a comment that is I think incorrect in a few different respects already reasonably explained in replies however its not rude or poorly written and in fact although incorrect in my opinion it prompted useful discussion. This is an example where down vote to disagree isn't useful because instead of discouraging people from expressing opinions you believe are wrong a fruitless endeavor you may actually be discouraging the useful discussion that follows.
  • kjaftaedi 5y ago
    It didn't prompt any useful discussion though as there are no other participants on the "package managers are evil" side It might be useful to the commenter, but to the community it is not.
    • _8j50 5y ago
      I did not claim package managers are evil. I only claimed they are a bad fit for windows if if their usage is mandated because of the specifics and nuances of the windows software ecosystem which isn't exactly similar to the FOSS ecosystem.
      • michaelmrose 5y ago
        I think a fundamental misunderstanding is conflating Linux style system package management A collection of resources that are inserted and removed into standard locations plus metadata used to retrieve additional resources many times including some that may be shared between multiple packages including but not limited to dynamically linked libraries and actions to be completed on addition or removal of a package. and the fundamental concept of a package manager A tool that provides a standardized set of steps easily add or remove one or more resources to or from a system from a previously configured set of sources without the user needing to manually attend to the details of each installation. A package manager doesn't inherently impose any sort of constraints on how such packages are retrieved, their requirements met, or their operations actuated. It is the simple mapping between clicking or typing install foo bar in a singular interface and foo and bar being installed on your system. Foo and Bar could be msis individually retrieved from their respective web pages each bundling 100% of the resources needed to run and depending on nothing outside themselves. That is to say the result of running install foo bar could be the EXACT same result as navigating to each respective website, finding the appropriate download, running the installer, answering any questions, disabling any adware or toolbars and waiting for each routine to finish save only that you can't accidentally install malware, you don't need to google the website, its trivially repeatable and suitable to automation. In that context even if you don't like Linux system package managers it is incorrect to reject package managers in general as they are strictly superior to the alternative of manually retrieving the same packages to the web and in no way impose the things you dislike about Linux system package managers that you are concerned about. Although you may competently perform that task in fact the act of retrieving and installing software is one of the largest source of infections among users. Removing this source of challenges is as useful as the time saved by being able to run install foo.