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.) 

Yep, it could, but in this case, it doesn't. OTOH, FF3 also available in 
sources, so repo-admins could have compiled it with statically linked 
GTK for theier distros instead of letting dynamically linked in.

Oh, wait... There's no mention that FF3 came from reposity, so I'll need 
to assume it came as single binary-packet with it's own installer. Why 
wasn't it installed via the package manager?

> 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.

True, neither would such software sell for Linux. I'm sure there would 
be loads of refund-requests of FF3 after that kind of screwup, if it 
wasn't free of cost.

> It wasn't really trolling[1].  It was a continuation of a previous 
> conversation, where someone was saying that Windows was poor because it 
> didn't have a package manager. 

I guess this means our conversation at p.o-t.f.h.b.b.b? I wasn't saying 
Windows is poor because it doesn't have a package manager (rpm, dpkg 
oslt). What I did say is I'd like to have a software reposity for 
Windows, to be used as easily as in Linux (ie Portage). There are 
practically really low amount of dependencies at Windows-world, but 
there's still a pretty load of software.

> I was pointing out that pretty much every 
> Windows program is a stand-alone install, so it doesn't need a package 
> manager. 

I'd (I, as me, so that being *an opinion*) still like to install 
Irfanview, Firefox, GIMP and other software with "install irfanview 
firefox gimp" -style command instead of surfing the 'net, downloading 
each packet individually and running them.

> When it's not stand-alone and needs DirectX or .NET or 
> something, that comes with the install. 

Not always (actually I can't remember a single .NET -software I've 
installed that inholds the .NET system), but luckily they are easy to 
find from MS's site (after you work out *which* version of .NET you 
need[1]). I'd still like (it's still an opinion) do that with "install 
.net-2" (yes, after I work out which version of .NET I need[1], because 
there's no package manager).

[1] .NET ain't fully downwards-compatible, so all .NET1 -software won't 
work on .NET2 and all .NET2 -software won't work on .NET3. I don't know 
if this is problem/reason of .NET or stupid programmers, but it's one of 
the rare system today, which need to have an exact version of such 
system on Windows. Java is another example of such system.

> If your OS needs to upgrade 25 
> packages to make Firefox work, then you better have a package manager, 
> yes.

Assuming from that web-page, the Windows-binaries of FF3 are 
statistically linked, Linux-binaries aren't. If Windows-binaries weren't 
(yep, they don't have to be), you'd still need to upgrade GTK on Windows 
also - and possibly the other software that rely on GTK (which are rare 
at Windows -world, that's what makes the difference and what makes 
static linking of such libraries more reasonable than dynamic linking).

>   If your distributions tend to be stand-alone, then you don't. I, 
> personally, would rather not need a package manager than to have one.

I, personally, would rather go start-install-"firefox3" or 
start-run-"install firefox3" than 
start-applications-seamonkey-seamonkey-"http://www.firefox.com"-download-setup.exe. 
Even when there's no dependencies or other software to be installed. 
*That's* what I ment earlier.

-- 
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
    http://www.zbxt.net
       aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid

Post a reply to this message