05-04-2012
23,310,
4,623
Join Date: Aug 2005
Last Activity: 7 July 2020, 11:47 AM EDT
Location: Saskatchewan
Posts: 23,310
Thanks Given: 1,331
Thanked 4,623 Times in 4,217 Posts
Linux, and UNIX in general, are very "unmagical". Get the bootloader running, put the right files in the right places with the right permissions, and it should do what it's told. I've replicated entire linux systems with nothing but fdisk, mkfs, tar, and grub-install -- that is, replicated a system at the file-level, not the disk-level, and had it operate perfectly.
The UNIX philosophy is also "a program should do one thing and do it well". Your installer is your installer; your backup system is your backup system. Why would there be a special restore for applications alone when you can cover the whole system the same way? When everything is a file, you can roll back an installation by simply rolling back files. This makes recovering from installs simply a manner of keeping proper backups.
Windows on the other hand really needs it due to design decisions. Backing up files is not enough. Its opaque, always-live, and heavily centralized registry system means you can get all the right files in the right places but unless you capture the registry values at the exact right instant, it may be all for naught, and need an installer that doesn't just install and uninstall, but also keeps its own backups, does scanning and repair, and other such maintenance. Each application needs its own installer to do this, though a lot use one made from a template. And it still breaks down far too often because of how Windows has divorced its configuration from its filesystem.
Last edited by Corona688; 05-04-2012 at 04:15 AM..