3 ms·

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, b

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.

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.