John VanSickle wrote:
> 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. 

You know, I begin to see what Warp means when he says everyone takes the 
worst possible reading of something.

Who said anything about "a flaw in Linux"?  Not I!  I said "A package 
manager in Linux."  Unless you think having a package manager is 
inherently a flaw.

> I am sure that Linux apps 
> could just as easily be distributed as binaries which fully install 
> everything needed to run the application.

One would expect so, yes.

> 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.

Yep.  And?

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message