Multiple platform support

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Visit the Developer Setup Guide or download the source code.
2. Realize that it's Windows only.
3. Sigh.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
Expected output: platform independent code.
What I saw instead: Windows-only code.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
Not using any version of the product, which is exactly the point.
Using Ubuntu 8.10.

Please provide any additional information below.
Doing away with the MS-specific stuff would be good. Perhaps use a toolkit
other than ATL/MFC for the GUI?
Doing away with the MS Visual C++ requirement would also be interesting,
even if the project remains Windows-only - although since this requirement
seems to exist due to the ATL/MFC dependency, switching to another toolkit
would possibly also take care of it.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by borf...@gmail.com on 11 Apr 2009 at 8:37

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Ubuntu's package management system removes any need for a third-party updater. 
Apps
for this platform should be packaged as .deb files and hosted in a repository, 
and
updates will be handled automatically by the OS.

Original comment by sss...@gmail.com on 12 Apr 2009 at 1:55

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Correct.

But not everyone uses Ubuntu, right? :)

Original comment by borf...@gmail.com on 12 Apr 2009 at 3:40

[GoogleCodeExporter]

According to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package_management_system#Linux_distributions , 
I'm not
sure that Omaha for GNU/Linux (and *BSD) is useful.

Original comment by chtitux on 13 Apr 2009 at 8:04

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Why are we talking only about Linux? What about Mac OS X?

I'm talking about making omaha platform independent, so that it can be built on
whatever platforms support the toolkits it is built with. For instance, imagine 
the
GUI part of it was built around GTK or QT, and that the GUI part was the only
platform-dependent part of omaha; instead of being Windows-only, omaha would be
compatible with all the platforms that would support GTK or QT. Yes, I know 
it's not
as simple as this - but it's not much more complicated either.

And heck, if you want to talk Linux, what if someone would find a way to build 
yet
another package management system based on omaha, and it would reveal itself to 
be
something that solved all the problems that exist in current package managers, 
or
would provide a new useful functionality? :)

I really don't see any disadvantage in doing it platform independent, while I 
do see
some lost potential in doing it windows-only.

Original comment by borf...@gmail.com on 13 Apr 2009 at 8:47

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I'm disappointed too - It true that such an project should solve the issue on
multiple platforms. 

Still I consider that on Linux the job is much easier because all it would have 
to do
is to publish your RPM/DEB repository - it's a *good* idea to use OS supplied 
update
system if possible... You'll not be able to get your open source updates on 
Windows
Update :D

Original comment by sorin.sb...@gmail.com on 13 Apr 2009 at 10:50

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I agree that there may be potential for a "one true package manager", but it 
looks 
like updates for OSX apps are already supported by a separate project:

http://code.google.com/p/update-engine/

Perhaps these projects could merge at some future date.

Original comment by Codeben...@gmail.com on 14 Apr 2009 at 6:15

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I did not know about Update Engine but yes, at first it seems it would be a 
good idea
to merge the two of them at some point.

Original comment by borf...@gmail.com on 14 Apr 2009 at 9:13

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I did create a new issue on the update-engine for requesting the merge of these 
two
projects. We'll have to see how many are considering this a priority (by 
starring
these two issues).
Cross issue: http://code.google.com/p/update-engine/issues/detail?id=17&can=1

Original comment by sorin.sb...@gmail.com on 2 May 2009 at 12:24

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Hell no, don't port this evil program to Linux.  It's bad enough that my 
Windows box grinds to a halt every time it runs.

Original comment by swatk...@gmail.com on 7 Feb 2014 at 6:44