Comment by marcosdumay
4 days ago
That's not exactly what Windows installers did.
They absolutely created 10 different ways to install software; they didn't really advertised they were an installer; the only backward compatible thing there are the MS libraries; there was no common backup/restore format.
Instead, the Unix people made a mechanism for random programs to use their own libraries and not touch the system one. In fact, Windows had one too, but most applications still decided they need to break the system.
One of the biggest pitfalls in understanding the world is interpreting everything as an absolute. If someone says "dogs have four legs", you might think "well, I saw a dog with three legs, so there's no value in the idea that dogs have four legs, and I'll conclude that if I see tracks from an animal that seems to have four legs, it's impossible to know if it's a dog or a giant centipede". It's a pernicious little quirk of our minds that we fall for this kind of thinking.
To wit. The idea that installers on Windows behaved the way I described is an interesting fact. The idea that a few installers did things in unusual ways is a much less interesting fact. Putting them on the same level robs you of the insight, and if this is a pattern then there are a lot of things you simply can't learn, because an exception could be found.