I've never seen any of those terrible anti-user behaviours in a Linux package manager, or makefile.
I would be fine with an actual security fix being downloaded and installed silently (without any other payload of course).
What does the 'Windows Philosophy' have to do with the decisions Oracle makes about Java anyway? Do you really think Java follows the 'Windows Philosophy'?
Also, I do not think other platforms can be as plagued as Windows is, because it's a matter of culture and user expectations being driven by that culture. The size of the user base has nothing to do with it.
On Windows users wishing to get anything done resort to installing some crap, even for basic things like uncompressing an archive, watching a movie, listen to some MP3 or viewing a PDF or an Office document.
Things got better with open-source software that was ported to Windows, but considering that Windows is the dominant operating system, the ecosystem is actually kind of lame. If you want quality software, the few exceptions are some open-source apps and some products being sold by some big publishers and that's it.
I have a theory that this is because Microsoft itself encouraged piracy and bundling of crapware, while discouraging indie developers, communities and open-source.
I don't know about philosophies, but Windows is the only OS I have used which suffers from these problems. I have never experienced this on OS X or Linux.
I don't particularly care why, just that it happens.
For one, each having fewer users should not be ignored. 90% fewer users means 90% less potential profit. That's a big number even when you aren't relying on a revenue generation model such as ads.
But not just that - also because the average user on both platforms (particularly Linux) is more computer-literate, and therefore better-capable of defending against this sort of thing.
And on the OS X side, remember that for a long time the Java run-time was distributed by Apple. The agreement to start having it be distributed by Oracle might well have included a "no crapware" provision.
On the Linux side, well, that's where all their enterprise customers live nowadays. They really do not want to piss off their enterprise customers like that.
Linux distros have great package manager and you won't get greedy crap-ware from the Open Source community.
It's a shame that Windows installers have become so bloated. The other day I've seen one with a check box labeled "I agree [to install this crap ware]" just bellow the license text. Really deceptive.
Hopefully the Windows Store will help improve that experience.
So, those companies could grow their profits by 10% by becoming cross-platform? I would think it would be much harder to tweak that installer to get 10% more conversions on Windows than to provide a Mac installer.
Also: it is revenue that they are leaving on the table, not profit. That makes this a slightly less favorable option, but still, I think a company would be stupid to keep even 5% extra revenue on the table.
I see two potential reasons why OS X does not have this problem:
- there aren't as many places to hook into the system. For example, Safari doesn't support custom toolbars (it might be possible to code something as a browser extension, but let's not wake anybody)
- the culture on both platforms is different. Windows users may moan about crap, but in general accept it; Mac users less so. See my earlier comment at http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5060019
I call shenanigans.
Just because it hasn't happened to you, doesn't mean it never happens.
I found it very irritating that if you try to install iTunes on windows, it would pop up a window telling you to 'upgrade' your browser to safari.
Sounds like Windows to me.
I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but I remember Nero or similar software coming with such a crap too. We, geeks and nerds, quickly get into our habits to uncheck the checkboxes and all. But workaround have developed, such as needing to check a box to not install the bundled crapware.
In my opinion, package managers are the single greatest innovation to happen to computer usability since the WIMP paradigm.
* iTunes installing several start up processes and Quicktime players
* printer drivers CDs installing all manner of crapware
* OEM bloatware
* Winamp installer recommends all sorts of sponsored crap
* Adobe's terrible update system (ok, not really what we're discussing here, but i resent having to reboot my entire OS just for an update to a PDF viewer)
* and the amount of programs that install start up processes just to check for updates is depressing
* Even Microsoft themselves are guilty of pushing crapware (eg Bing seach bars) in Windows update
....and that's just off the top of my head.
I know this sounds terribly negative but it's fair to say that Windows' current method for allowing developer to run rampant with 3rd party installers is sub par by today's standards. And I think even Microsoft realise this because they're now switching to a package manager with online repositories with Win8. I just hope that their main focus isn't to fleece the developers like Apple do.
On a side note, about that memory resident stuff. A quick look at the Activity Monitor on my Mac suggests similar stories. I have an iTunes Helper process running, don't use iTunes. A bunch of MS Office stuff, irony there. There's one for Spotify, which isn't running. Another for VMWare Fusion which is also not running. A large amount of processes that I have to assume that a number of them are typical system processes but not familiar with such things on a Mac I have no way to tell. Following your thought then I totally blame Apple for their lack of control over their third parties.
But again, why exactly is this the fault of Windows and/or Microsoft? Are you saying that Microsoft should have had a heavier hand in terms of third-parties? Seems to me, considering history, they would have answered to the Justice Department for doing such a thing. Keep in mind that almost every single one of your examples come from third-party sources outside of Microsoft's control.
Are you suggesting that it is impossible for nefarious entities to get crapware, bloatware, or other unwanted things into Linux or OS X through social engineering or shady practices? My Mac comes with all kinds of iSoftware that I don't want/need/use so can I call those bloatware?
I'm still waiting for enough examples of crapware bothering people on a day-to-day basis that can support the statement that such behavior is the "Windows philosophy".
Although, I grant to you that if you somehow managed to get all that stuff on your system at the same time then that would affect your day-to-day because of eventual performance issues. But then again, in most cases if people would bother to read what they click on then they'll avoid most of this stuff. It's the ones that install themselves without your knowledge are the truly offensive crap.
I think it's rather that almost all Linux software is either open source or installed through a package manager (usually both). Open source developers would fork and remove any such behavior if the program is at all worth dealing with. While package managers would not be likely to include such annoying software to begin with.
And if you say that this won't happen, because software will still be installed through a package manager than well... maybe that's (one of the reasons) why Linux doesn't have a similar non-tech-savvy userbase as Windows.
One of the main reasons it took me many years to switch to Linux was the lack of games. Many others felt the same way.
If I was Steam, I'd use the sales to customers whose primary platform is Linux to fund the porting of additional games, either through grants/incentives to developers, patching of Wine, or both. The more acceptable Linux becomes as a viable alternative for gamers, the stronger the uptake of desktop Linux will be.
As for package managers, money talks. I would have said the same thing about someone sliding in crapware with a Java update some years ago.
No, on Linux the Java plug-ins simply don't work at all most of the time.
(I work on a project using a Java applet, and frequently get negative feedback from colleagues running Linux about this issue.)
I bet the vast majority of those users having problems are running OpenJRE/JDK, which is known to have issues with some Java applications (though the issues are slowly being resolved; bit by bit).
Sadly, because of licencing issues, most distros only support the open run times in their main repos, but adding Oracle JRE isn't much trouble.