As others have pointed out you can do this, but there are at least two major advantages to the way Linux distributions use package managers:
Shared libraries - on Windows most binaries will have their own code libraries rolled into them, which means that every program which uses that library has installed a copy of it on your hard drive, which is highly inefficient and wastes a lot of hard drive space, and means that when a new version of the library is released you still have to wait for each program developer to implement it in a new version of their binary. On Linux, applications installed via the package manager can share a single copy of common dependencies like code libraries, and that library can be updated separately from the applications that use it.
Easy updating - on Windows you would have to download new versions of each program individually and install them when a new version is released. If you don’t do this regularly in today’s internet-dependent world, you expose your system to a lot of vulnerabilities. With a Linux package manager you can simply issue the update command (e.g. sudo apt upgrade) and the package manager will download all the new versions of the applications and install them for you.
I can respect the value of point 1 - that’s nominally why we have .DLL files and the System32 folder, among other places. There are means to share libraries built into the OS, people just don’t bother for various reasons - as you said, version differences are a noted reason. It’s ‘inefficient’, but it hasn’t hurt the general user experience.
To point 2, the answer for me is simple: I don’t trust upgrades anymore - that’s not an OS-dependent problem, that’s an issue of programmers and and UI developers chasing mindless trends instead of maintaining a functioning experience from the get-go. They change the UX, they require newer and more expensive computers for their utterly pointless flashy nonsense, and generally it leads to upgrades and updates just being a problem for me. In a setting like mine where my PC is actually personal, I’m quite happy to keep a specific set of programs that are known to be working, and then only consider budging after I’m sure it won’t break my workflow. I don’t want all the software to update at once, that’s an absolute nightmare scenario to me and will lead to immediate defenestration of the PC when any of the programs I use changes its UI again. I’m still actively raging at Firefox for going to the Australis garbage appearance, and I first moved to LibreOffice just because OpenOffice switched to a “ribbon”. I’ve had that same thing happen to other programs. I’m done with it.
Once I decide I’m going to continue using a program for a purpose, I don’t want some genius monkeying about with how I use it.
And as far as security, I can use an AV software or malware scanner that updates the database without breaking the user experience. I don’t need anyone else worrying about security except the piece(s) of software specifically built to mind it.
As others have pointed out you can do this, but there are at least two major advantages to the way Linux distributions use package managers:
Shared libraries - on Windows most binaries will have their own code libraries rolled into them, which means that every program which uses that library has installed a copy of it on your hard drive, which is highly inefficient and wastes a lot of hard drive space, and means that when a new version of the library is released you still have to wait for each program developer to implement it in a new version of their binary. On Linux, applications installed via the package manager can share a single copy of common dependencies like code libraries, and that library can be updated separately from the applications that use it.
Easy updating - on Windows you would have to download new versions of each program individually and install them when a new version is released. If you don’t do this regularly in today’s internet-dependent world, you expose your system to a lot of vulnerabilities. With a Linux package manager you can simply issue the update command (e.g.
sudo apt upgrade) and the package manager will download all the new versions of the applications and install them for you.I can respect the value of point 1 - that’s nominally why we have .DLL files and the System32 folder, among other places. There are means to share libraries built into the OS, people just don’t bother for various reasons - as you said, version differences are a noted reason. It’s ‘inefficient’, but it hasn’t hurt the general user experience.
To point 2, the answer for me is simple: I don’t trust upgrades anymore - that’s not an OS-dependent problem, that’s an issue of programmers and and UI developers chasing mindless trends instead of maintaining a functioning experience from the get-go. They change the UX, they require newer and more expensive computers for their utterly pointless flashy nonsense, and generally it leads to upgrades and updates just being a problem for me. In a setting like mine where my PC is actually personal, I’m quite happy to keep a specific set of programs that are known to be working, and then only consider budging after I’m sure it won’t break my workflow. I don’t want all the software to update at once, that’s an absolute nightmare scenario to me and will lead to immediate defenestration of the PC when any of the programs I use changes its UI again. I’m still actively raging at Firefox for going to the Australis garbage appearance, and I first moved to LibreOffice just because OpenOffice switched to a “ribbon”. I’ve had that same thing happen to other programs. I’m done with it.
Once I decide I’m going to continue using a program for a purpose, I don’t want some genius monkeying about with how I use it.
And as far as security, I can use an AV software or malware scanner that updates the database without breaking the user experience. I don’t need anyone else worrying about security except the piece(s) of software specifically built to mind it.