4 ms·

It is a walled garden since its inception. There is no package manager for building an open package ecosystem, as exists on other OSes.

by drcode 5y ago

TinkersW 5y ago
I'd say the OS, rather than a language, having a package manager is more of a walled garden..
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  No it isn't. You can still install and even build packages using the manifest separately. It is just convenience, but doesn't prevent you from installing them yourself.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Prevent, no. However making your promoted paradigm of software installation rely on repos and package maintainers has lead to practices that make it unlikely that you will find any given piece of software in a form you can just drop onto your system and have it run. If you're really lucky there's a static version or an AppImage, if you're unlucky you're pulling down a docker container of someone's build environment and compiling it yourself, if you're really unlucky you have to do without the docker container.
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      That is on software developers, many of which refuse to package their software. There are Snaps, Appimages, Flatpaks, etc. Free software isn't like Windows where developers are always packaging their software. Package managers don't impact this whatsoever, and what you're basically complaining about is that unpaid contributors make something easier for people that they wouldn't otherwise be able to easily do without them.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
        I'm complaining that the community's reliance on package management has set the expectation that unpaid contributors make software work on the platform.
melony 5y ago
Where do you think PowerShell's OneGet comes from? It comes from embracing and extending AppGet. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331287
- easton 5y ago
  The embracing and extending here was "that's a nice idea, we'll re-write that from scratch and use the Microsoft Store as a GUI for it", which doesn't seem like the same thing to me at all.
- kjaftaedi 5y ago
  You're thinking of WinGet. OneGet is an open source project run by an open source group at Microsoft and has been around since 2014. It's based on linux package managers.
babypuncher 5y ago
I think that is a matter of perspective. Operating systems wholly reliant on package managers are arguably walled gardens, since acquiring and running software that only exists outside the official repos can be a hassle. But I don't think most people mean either of these things when they say "walled garden". They are referring to ecosystems where the user's only choice for installing apps is an app store owned and maintained by the OS vendor.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Which is precisely what makes it not a walled garden: you can just, you know, put whatever software you want on it. That's the expected way to acquire software on Windows.

It is a walled garden since its inception. There is no package manager for building an open package ecosystem, as exists on other OSes.

by drcode 5y ago

It is a walled garden since its inception. There is no package manager for building an open package ecosystem, as exists on other OSes.

TinkersW 5y ago

I'd say the OS, rather than a language, having a package manager is more of a walled garden..

encryptluks2 5y ago
No it isn't. You can still install and even build packages using the manifest separately. It is just convenience, but doesn't prevent you from installing them yourself.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Prevent, no. However making your promoted paradigm of software installation rely on repos and package maintainers has lead to practices that make it unlikely that you will find any given piece of software in a form you can just drop onto your system and have it run. If you're really lucky there's a static version or an AppImage, if you're unlucky you're pulling down a docker container of someone's build environment and compiling it yourself, if you're really unlucky you have to do without the docker container.
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    That is on software developers, many of which refuse to package their software. There are Snaps, Appimages, Flatpaks, etc. Free software isn't like Windows where developers are always packaging their software. Package managers don't impact this whatsoever, and what you're basically complaining about is that unpaid contributors make something easier for people that they wouldn't otherwise be able to easily do without them.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
      I'm complaining that the community's reliance on package management has set the expectation that unpaid contributors make software work on the platform.

melony 5y ago

Where do you think PowerShell's OneGet comes from? It comes from embracing and extending AppGet. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331287 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23331287

easton 5y ago
The embracing and extending here was "that's a nice idea, we'll re-write that from scratch and use the Microsoft Store as a GUI for it", which doesn't seem like the same thing to me at all.
kjaftaedi 5y ago
You're thinking of WinGet. OneGet is an open source project run by an open source group at Microsoft and has been around since 2014. It's based on linux package managers.

babypuncher 5y ago

I think that is a matter of perspective. Operating systems wholly reliant on package managers are arguably walled gardens, since acquiring and running software that only exists outside the official repos can be a hassle. But I don't think most people mean either of these things when they say "walled garden". They are referring to ecosystems where the user's only choice for installing apps is an app store owned and maintained by the OS vendor.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

Which is precisely what makes it not a walled garden: you can just, you know, put whatever software you want on it. That's the expected way to acquire software on Windows.