Darren New wrote:

> Um, no. It's because you can bundle all that stuff in with the 
> application, but Linux doesn't.  (Maybe it could, but it doesn't.) It 
> isn't an argument, it's an example. The argument is even simpler: lots 
> of Windows software wouldn't sell if you needed to buy other software 
> before you could install it.  Unless it's (say) some business software 
> that's a plug-in for Outlook, or a plug-in for WMP or something.

This is not symptomatic of a flaw in Linux.  I am sure that Linux apps 
could just as easily be distributed as binaries which fully install 
everything needed to run the application.

The reason that Windows apps would not succeed this way while Linux apps 
do is because Windows users have come to expect complete support from 
the installer, whereas Linux users are accustomed to doing more of the 
legwork.  Linux is far more of an OS for gurus and hobbyists, while 
Windows is marketed towards people who never want to "lift the hood," so 
to speak, and would be utterly lost if they ever had to.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message