[Gllug] ObNaive: Why don't Linux systems get package database rot? Or do they?

[Mike Brodbelt]

Martin A. Brooks wrote:
> Christopher Currie wrote:
>> there must be some risk of similar errors 
>> and degradation which might corrupt package installation and hence, 
>> eventually, the system. Or isn't there?
>>   
> 
> The difference here is that a corrupt package DB will not stop the 
> machine booting,  a corrupt registry might as the registry contains far 
> more information than what's installed where.

I tend to think the biggest difference is in how the software is
packaged. Windows software tends to be very poorly put together -
installs lay down vast amounts of registry cruft, and uninstalls rarely
remove it. Add to that the fact software tends to run as admin, and the
registry is used as a combination of package database, configuration
storage for OS and application software, and hardware confiuration
repository, without any sensible separation and it's hardly surprising
the result is frangible and tends to degrade over time. Application
developers are rarely well behaved, which compounds the problem.

Contrast this with Debian, which works very well. People like to
attribute this success to apt, but they're wrong to do so. The strength
of Debian lies in the policy, and the effort put in by those who package
the software for the distribution.

> The solution in either case is the same: a well tested backup regime.

For Windows, a rapid re-install system is better - backing up the whole
system actually doesn't help. You want to re-install apps from clean
packages, and then restore your data on top.

Mike
-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug