This release cadence from MS is completely killing some internal packaging operations at big corps I've worked at.
(For those who don't know, applications are typically QA-ed and packaged so they can be automatically requested and deployed via MS SMS or whatever the latest version is. No downloading .exe)
Typically this packaging process takes longer than it does MS to release a new version. They're in a constant state of catch-up, and it's frustrating for developers that want the latest and greatest version.
This speaks more about enterprise "packaging process". Why can't they let the devs manage their own machines? This is one big reason devs love Macbooks, because OSX just doesn't allow the employer to fuck around with the machine a lot.
"Why can't they let the devs manage their own machines?"
Part of the problem is that then the devs aren't actually managing the systems, they are blindly trusting the vendors. To a large extent, (re)packaging is make-work that should not need to happen, but it does provide a kind of safety fuse. In the event that a vendor breaks something or worse, unilaterally decides to change the product, organizations needs to be able to put a stop on new versions. The change of icons on VS Code was a trivial misstep, but it demonstrates that the VS Code team has the power to push changes that that users do not actually want on to large numbers of systems.
It is the same dynamic as the snap/flatpak vs. Linux distribution packaging debate. Most of the time, the developer can deliver their software faster, more reliably, and with better QA, if they are given a direct pipeline to user desktops. Sometimes, though, they will screw up, or they will make a decision that works for them, but not their users.
Well, I do appreciate the service that distributions do.
In Debian everything has a manpage, even if upstream does not provide one and things install into the right directories and integrate into the system well.
If for instance Chromium adds some phone home functionality, I trust that it will be patched out...
The homebrew debacle has shown me that today's "open source" developers don't care about their user's privacy.
(For those who don't know, applications are typically QA-ed and packaged so they can be automatically requested and deployed via MS SMS or whatever the latest version is. No downloading .exe)
Typically this packaging process takes longer than it does MS to release a new version. They're in a constant state of catch-up, and it's frustrating for developers that want the latest and greatest version.