Hacker News Reader

Comment by frameset | Hacker News Reader

Other commenters have pointed out that the lack of a self replacing auto-updater in a modern desktop app is striking to put it mildly. It has a pretty bad UI, that seems to be getting worse especially with regard to the shades of grey. If you bring up these flaws the maintainer can react quite poorly, even when the subject is broached politely and in good faith.

And to add my complaints to those of other commenters, hosting the library on another computer or network share is not supported, and you can't use an external DB provider e.g. MySQL.

View on HN

Seems like a feature. Packages shouldn't update themselves. That's what package managers are for.

Calibre is cross-platform, and windows is about 40 years behind when it comes to software distribution best practices. Windows users don't realize that their OS is the problem, and expect all software developers to work around their OS's retarded idiosyncrasies.

Windows added a package manager with active auto-updates in Windows 8 called the Windows/Microsoft Store. It has supported non-sandboxed installers since a year into Windows 10 (the "Anniversary Update"). Late in Windows 10/11 they added a useful CLI tool for it ("winget") and a bit more than just the Store. Around the same time the Store also added support for "update feeds" other than ones that the Store directly manages.

(If anyone recalls old .NET "One Click" updaters, where you can just dump new versions into the right folder structure at a URL and the updater does the work of checking for new versions, the Store can now check similar folder structures if you'd prefer that way to manage updates instead of uploading updates directly to the Store.)

I think its more Developers don't realize their distrust of the OS is the problem today. Users are mostly happy with the Store, when they can find things on it. It is Developers that still don't like putting things on it, or have weird distrust issues with the Store, which is the issue now.

I'm aware of it, and it is a step in the right direction I suppose. But what's the point of a package manager, if you need another one (windows updates) to install/update other software, and yet another method (each app auto-updating itself) just to update all of the software on your system?

The whole point of a package manager is having one place to do all the updates/installations.

But this multi-billion $ company can't use it's clout and complete control over their OS to enforce one good way of installing/updating software.

A lot of what used to be in Windows Update is now in the Store updater.

Many of the developer complaints about the Store have been the times Microsoft has even hinted at trying to use their clout to move every install/update to the Store. You can find all sorts of yelling and arguments here on HN and elsewhere about Microsoft's various S Edition and S Mode projects over the years all the way back to Windows 8.

Talk about moving to one package manager to rule them all on Windows pushed Valve to return to work on Steam OS and moving to Linux for their freedoms. Talk about moving to one package manager sparked Epic creating the Epic Game Store to bulwark their sales freedoms.

Developers seem to love the freedom to build a million terrible auto-updaters no matter what their users actually want and go crazy every time Microsoft even mentions the idea of a user-friendly single package manager edition/version/mode of Windows.

To clarify, I would be happy if it either used the Windows Store updater (essentially a windows package manager) or updated itself via a self downloading msi package or similar. Instead it has neither.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com