48 ms·
I can't help but compare this to OS X, where most applications are bundled together with any dependencies that you can't safely assume will exist because they a
by bunderbunder 12y ago
I can't help but compare this to OS X, where most applications are bundled together with any dependencies that you can't safely assume will exist because they aren't included in the OS.
Yes, it does waste some disk space. But the $5 worth of disk space that this approach costs me is more than justified by the $5,000 worth of gray hairs it saves me.
My only lament is that things still fall back to the annoying old-fashioned way of doing it whenever I need to install software that's more Unix than OS X. Which, given I'm a programmer, is still pretty much all of it.
- CUViper 12y agoSure, and Windows is much the same wrt bundling. The tradeoff is that now you've multiplied the responsibility of library updates across everyone that bundled it. You probably won't care if simple library version updates are missed, if the app itself doesn't care. You might care more about bugs that require every app to update, especially if it's a security bug.
- Meekro 12y agoSure there's a tradeoff, but for most people it's really rare to use software that isn't being actively maintained. So let the maintainers update their dependencies when there's a security flaw, the auto-update will pull in the changes, and I'll still benefit from OS X's 30-second install process.