E.g., you may note that one of the packages the script checks for is zoom. Zoom is installed as a normal .deb file that I download from the zoom website, and install manually using dpkg, which installs it in the normal system directories. But it has its own cumbersome update check mechanism (which involves clicking a menu in the app), and is not picked up by apt-update because it's not a repo package. So this makes it a good candidate for a misc-updates check, even though it's installed as a normal .deb file. :)
What surprises me is that there seems to be no other way than hacking (cutting, grepping, etc.) each package separately. I wonder how this is handled in machines that use a lot of MISC packages (other than pulling+building every time to automatically have the latest version)?
Also, kudos on the acronym :)
https://github.com/tpapastylianou/misc-updater
In full honesty, I'm as proud of the "MISC" acronym as of the script itself. :p
I'm secretly hoping the acronym catches on for referring to any stuff outside the control of a system's standard package management.