Darren New wrote:
>  
> Yeah. The problem is, who is going to host such a thing?  We already 
> have a software repository: it's called Google. :-)
> 

Somehow I can't think Google as software repository, but I might be too 
technical thinker (oslt) for that.

> That would certainly be convenient, but impractical for any commercial 
> software. But for the free stuff? Sure, why would it be difficult? 
> Nobody wants it enough to actually write the code to maintain the list 
> of places to download setup.exe files from. :-)

Actually I'm starting to think it could be a good programming practice 
:-). Software developers (possibly others, too, but it could create some 
problems) could enter the version, URL of the package, name of the 
executable and what versions of Windows it works for (ie. via the web). 
The software could sync this list either when told or by a schedule and 
when told, get the package and run the installer.

Yes, there's still problem of getting software to the reposity.

>> Not always (actually I can't remember a single .NET -software I've 
>> installed that inholds the .NET system),
> 
> Actually, it was pretty common in the earlier days. And DirectX always 
> came with the software. 

Yes, I remember DX coming with lot of games (I also remember that some 
games insisted to have older DX installed and that created problems). I 
don't remember .NET coming with any other software (OTOH I haven't 
installed a lot of .NET -software, just some).

> I think now that pretty much everyone has gotten 
> .NET via windows update, folks don't include it as much. 

Yep. I don't have one installed at my home-XP (yes, my laptop has one 
and I have booted it up once this summer, when I played C&C Generals at 
Norway :p), but I also don't update that XP, so I'm a special case anyway.

> Certainly not 
> in a downloaded product, but on CDs it still is there.  Why include a 
> free download package with your download if it isn't needed?

Yep, certainly not needed, since (as I wrote) it's easily available from 
MS's site.

> Of course, those who don't even provide a direct link to the .net from 
> their installer are just lame. :-)

Actually I don't recall seeing one even once. I'm getting more and more 
sure that we are mostly using different software on Windows ;).

> 
> Actually, it's done on purpose, and specifically designed to work 
> nevertheless. They call it "side by side execution".

Ok, now I know more.

> 
> Fair enough. And sure, having a nice interface to a repository in that 
> sense is a good thing. 

Yep, it would be freaking great IMO ;).

> But you can't really do that in the commercial 
> world, 

True.

> and there's way way too much Windows software to do that for free 
> in the "free" world. 

Umm... I don't get this. There's loads and loads of free software using 
such systems in Linux -world, so I don't straight away believe that the 
amount of free Win-software would be a problem.

> It's not like it would be hard to support - all 
> you'd need is the list of packages to download and launch. 

Yep. Also version and supported platforms would be needed to avoid 
problems and make upgrading software possible.

> Getting 
> everyone to play along is the problem, and if folks don't play 
> along,they don't show up in your repository *and* there's nothing you 
> can do about it 

Yep.

> unless it's GPL so you can recompile it yourself to make 
> it play along.

Hmm.. Why would it need to be recompiled? Yes, the next-clicking 
operation could be avoided, but having the setup up with just one 
command would already be a half of a win.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message