quote:
Original post by uNiQue0815
i don''t really want to have a granny-friendly OS.
Yeah, but grannies do.
In my opinion, if a process isn''t granny-friendly then grannies wont use it. If we want grannies to use it, then we have to make it granny friendly. What does this really mean, all analogies aside? That providing a simple, effective and efficient package management technology is important for Linux and other free *nixes to make real inroads into the desktop arena.
quote:
Original post by BradDaBug
To play the devil''s advocate, what''s so bad about the way Windows installs stuff?
The registry, and the fact that you very often can''t eliminate all the crap stored in there, which eventually leads to system instability.
quote:
Download a .exe, run it, tell it where to put the stuff (if the default location ain''t where it should be) and install it. Poof. Why can''t Linux be more like that? What''s up with this .rpm stuff?
What''s up with this .msi stuff? Why is Microsoft trying to advocate a single installer architecture, so it can verify packages and present a uniform installation process UI? Why doesn''t it stick with the outdated model of having users face a wide variety of install formats and behaviors? In short, why is Microsoft adopting the practices of Linux distributions.
Of course, just like Linux distros, Microsoft can''t make developers use MSI (well, they can, but it''d be ugly) so we''re stuck in a transitional period where people still insist on using a variety of installers with different behavior and consequences for me as the user. Same with Linux. Some people don''t even provide build scripts. Such people should either be shot, or have their programs confined to a dusty vault filled with PDP-11s.
quote:
Why don''t I have any control over where stuff is installed?
You do. Read the help/man file/info doc as appropriate.
