(to be noted at first: now I think I've managed to say what I ment 
earlier, therefore the conversation seems a lot healthier now)

Darren New wrote:
> 
> It's not. It's a link repository. :-)  I think if you actually wanted to 
> *store* all the software ever written for Windows, you'd be looking at 
> an even larger expenditure.

Well yes, it can be thought as one, but... It's a universal search 
engine, it gets up *loads* of other stuff also - even when you search 
for software. Granted, with the correct search terms the software you 
want is usually at the top of the list.

> 
> It's ... pretty trivial to do that sort of code these days. Not really 
> much practice, unless you've never done that sort of thing before. :-)

I've *never* coded any Windows -based software (unless you count Excel 
macros - I don't), neither anything with GUI. So yes, a pretty basic 
practice.

>> Yes, there's still problem of getting software to the reposity.
> 
> If you can standardize the formats coming in, it wouldn't be hard. Just 
> put the "browse" button in.

Nah, I mean actually to get the software publishers to actually post 
theier software/link to the repository...

> Next up: let the owner of the software take it down. Hire lawyers to 
> defend you against people uploading illegal software. Etc.

...because of this. As I said, having a totally open system would have 
it's own negative points.

>> 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 ;).
> 
> It certainly sounds that way.   I don't tend to install a whole lot of 
> ametuer-ware. Some, but not a lot.  

Same here - I install a Windows -software[1] when one is really needed.

[1] I practically use Windows only at work, which clearly is not a 
playground. I do have Windows XP installed on my own laptop, but only 
for a couple of games.

> Mostly little utilities more than 
> packages complex enough to need something like .NET.

Most of the .NET -software I've installed are actually very specific to 
  the job they're ment to do.

>>> 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 ;).
> 
> Go for it. ;-)

I... I... I don't think I need to anymore. Thanks Nicolas.

> So, you think sourceforge.net doesn't have financial difficulties? :-) 

Ah yes, storing all the software surely does cost money, you're right. I 
misread the free being also something else than free of cost.

> And, honestly, I think there's *tons* more (admittedly crappy) software 
> for Windows than Linux. 

Possibly, but there's still tons and loads of free software for Linux, 
which should pick up the problems, even in slighter mode.

> There's lots of decent software in Linux. There's *tons* of crappy 
> software for Windows, and no good way of sorting out which is which.

True that. And it's somehow sad that there actually is a lot of crap 
easily available for Windows, when most of that crap is crap because 
it's done poorly.

> Now, if you ran a "windows repository" that had only the well-written 
> utilities, I'd pay to access that. :-)

Sounds like a business idea :-).

But no, I don't have time to evaluate all the software. But the system 
could inhold a users preference -section to maintain some information of 
the level of the software.


> Well, repackaged. If all you get is "setup.exe" and everything's wrapped 
> up in that, you're going to have trouble distributing it yourself in a 
> package manager. Or if you get dozens of files as on a CD, you'll also 
> have a bit of trouble there. 

Well... possibly. The system could do what the user normally does (get 
the package and either run it or uncompress it and run the given file 
from that location).

> I guess you could do what RPMs do, and wrap 
> up everything with a script that runs afterwards to put stuff in the 
> right place and register it in the registry. 

That could be possible too.

> Kind of a bummer if it's an 
> old setup.exe that reboots your machine at the end of the setup, before 
> your package manager can record its successful installation.

True :).

> I'm sure if you took 500 Windows packages that you can download right 
> now, you'd find at least 100 you'd need to rework in some way to make 
> them register their presence in *your* package manager. :-)

That's possible, but the count can vary anywhere between 0-500, by the 
selection of the packages :P.

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

Post a reply to this message