Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Installable versions of Windows apps still bundle most of the libraries like portable apps do, because Windows does not have a package manager to install them.





Windows does have a package manager and has for the last 5 years.

Apart from the Microsoft Visual C++ Runtime, there's not much in the way of third-party dependencies that you as a developer would want to pull in from there. Winget is great for installing lots of self-contained software that you as an end user want to keep up to date. But it doesn't really provide a curated ecosystem of compatible dependencies in the way that the usual Linux distribution does.

Ok but that’s a different argument to “windows doesn’t have a package manager”

No, this is directly relevant to the comparison, especially since the original context of this discussion is about how Windows portable apps are no bigger than their locally installed counterparts.

A typical Linux package manager provides applications and libraries. It is very common for a single package install with yum/dnf, apt, pacman, etc. to pull in dozens of dependencies, many of which are shared with other applications. Whereas, a single package install on Windows through winget almost never pulls in any other packages. This is because Windows applications are almost always distributed in self-contained format; the aforementioned MSVCRT is a notable exception, though it's typically bundled as part of the installer.

So yes, Windows has a package manager, and it's great for what it does, but it's very different from a Linux package manager in practice. The distinction doesn't really matter to end users, but it does to developers, and it has a direct effect on package sizes. I don't think this situation is going to change much even as winget matures. Linux distributions carefully manage their packages, while Microsoft doesn't (and probably shouldn't).


I never said that WinGet was a drop in replacement for yum - but the parents claim that windows doesn’t have a package manager isn’t true.

There are plenty of padkages that require you to add extra sources to your package manager, that are not maintained by the distro. Docker [0] has official instructions to install via their package source. WinGet allows third party sources, so there’s no reason you can’t use it. It natively supports dependencies too. The fact that applications are packaged in a way that doesn’t utilise this for WinGet is true - but again, I was responding to the claim that windows doesn’t have a package manager.

[0] https://docs.docker.com/engine/install/fedora/#install-using...


> I never said that WinGet was a drop in replacement for yum - but the parents claim that windows doesn’t have a package manager isn’t true.

Context matters. They were talking about a type of package manager.

But even without caring about context, the sentence was not "Windows does not have a package manager". The sentence ended with "Windows does not have a package manager to install them" and "them" refers to things that winget generally does not have.


Not as understood by users of every other operating system, even macOS. It's more of an "application manager". Microsoft has a history of developing something and reusing the well-understood term to mean something completely different.

Assuming you're talking about winget, that seems to operate either as an alternative CLI interface to the MS store with a separate database developers would need to add their manifests to, or to download and run normal installers in silent mode. For example if you do winget show "adobe acrobat reader (64-bit) you can see what it will grab. It's a far cry from how most linux package managers operate

Windows 2020 - Welcome to Linux 1999 where the distro has a package manager that has just about everything most users will ever need as options to install from the web.

I can say the same thing about Linux - it’s 2025 and multi monitor, Bluetooth and WiFi support still doesn’t work.

Er, yes they do? I guess things could be spotty if you don't have drivers (which... is true of any OS), but IME that's rare. But I have to ask because I keep hearing variations of this: What exactly is wrong with */Linux handling of multi-monitor? The worst I think I've ever had with it is having to go to the relevant settings screen and tell it how my monitors are laid out and hitting apply.

>I guess things could be spotty if you don’t have drivers

Sure, and this unfortunately isn’t uncommon.

> What exactly is wrong with */Linux handling of multi-monitor?

X11’s support for multiple monitors that have mismatched resolutions/refresh rates is… wrong. Wayland improves upon this but doesn’t support g sync with nvidia cards (even in the proprietary drivers) You might say that’s not important to you and that’s fine, but it’s a deal breaker to me.


Maybe they're using a Desktop Environment that poorly expresses support for it?

I have limited a sample size, but xrandr on the command line and GUI tools in KDE Plasma and (not as recently) LXQt (it might have been lxde) work just fine in the laptop + TV or Projector case.


> I have limited a sample size, but xrandr on the command line and GUI tools in KDE Plasma and (not as recently) LXQt (it might have been lxde) work just fine in the laptop + TV or Projector case.

I'm fond of arandr; nice GUI, but also happily saves xrandr scripts once you've done the configuration.


The only thing you can say in the context of the few bleeding edge hardware that isn't supported by Linux is that:

1. The hardware vendors are still not providing support the way they do for windows.

2. The Linux Devs haven't managed to adapt to these new hardwares.


FUD (Fear Uncertainty Doubt).

Every OS has it's quirks, things you might not recall as friction points because they're expected.

I haven't found any notable issues with quality hardware, possibly with some need to verify support in the case of radio transmitter devices. You'd probably have the same issue for E.G. Mac OS X.

As consumers we'd have an easier time if: 1) The main chipset and 'device type ID' had to be printed on the box. 2) Model numbers had to change in a visible way for material changes to the Bill of Materials (any components with other specifications, including different primary chipset control methods). 3) Manufacturers at least tried one flavor of Linux, without non-GPL modules (common firmware blobs are OK) and gave a pass / fail on that.


I don’t think I am spreading FUD. Hardware issues with Linux on non well trodden paths is a well known issue. X11 (still widely used on many distros) has a myriad of problems with multi monitor setups - particularly when resolutions and refresh rates don’t match.

You’re right that the manufacturers could provide better support, but they don’t.


Unfortunately a lot of Windows devs are targeting 10 year old versions.



Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: