We'll test it after it's deployed

boomzilla

@boomzilla said:
The maddening thing is that they've integrated Office into their package manager (i.e., automatic updates). I'm slightly surprised that the EU or somebody hasn't gone after this with the anti-trust stick.

Wait what?

10 minutes ago you're screaming for Microsoft to let any application use Windows Update, now you're saying they should be sued for letting Office use it?

Fucking shit man. I know you're Boomzilla, but... this is retarded even for you. Please seppuku immediately.

Where did I say that I thought they should be sued? Because it's obviously not in the quoted post. For the reading impaired, here's what a more verbose version of that post could have been:

MS has shown that it's possible to use automatic updating for software that isn't part of Windows.
Why don't they let other people integrate with their (mostly working) update system to prevent broken vendor update crap and reduce unpatched / vulnerable software in the wild?
You know, not letting others use this, but using it themselves seem very similar to previous anti-trust complaints. I'm amazed that the over zealous anti-trust assholes haven't gone after this.

Cassidy

@blakeyrat said:

Is there any way for closed-source software to use a Linux package manager to manage updates?

Yes. Many companies (Nvidia, ATI, etc) have closed-source code where their compiled objects appear as packages on official repos. The only real difference is:

there's no "src" counterpart that can be "installed" to provide the source
compiling and constructing the packages is performed solely by the vendor.

*nix-based package managers simply do the same task as an installshield wizard under Windows: extract precompiled binaries, libraries and config files, drop them into specific locations then register their contents with some database - be it the RPM databases, windows registry, DPKG lists or PKGADD hashes.

Many distros take the source as offered from the developers, compile it to work under their distro (release and version) then pop some additional manifest files describing prerequisites/dependencies and install location paths together as a installable package. Some communities (Atomic, Yellow Dog, ScientificLinux) do the same as a vendor but with less mainstream packages, increasing application availability outside the limitations of what the core distro stuff offers.

Proprietry vendors that wish to keep their source away from prying hippy eyes do all this stuff behind closed doors and submit the finished result to the repo managers for inclusion. Some vendors have been admired for it, others villified for it (no pleasing some people).

flabdablet

@tgape said:

@blakeyrat said:
Where the ~~Linux~~ Unix "designers" just said, "fuck it, shove all the files in the same huge-ass directories and don't worry about keeping track of what program they support. Time to booze up!"

TL;DR version: Yep
Sigh. Sometimes, I wish I lived in a world in which one could claim this was not a fundamental truth of the unix world - every instance of the unix world I've encountered, Dynix, HPUX, AIX, Solaris, SunOS, NeXTSTeP, Ultrix, Xenix, Minix, Lunix, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, OpenSewer, OSF/1, and probably at least half a dozen others besides Linux.

Then you might like Gobo Linux.