Darren New wrote:
> 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.

You said that Windows doesn't need one; whether it was your intent or 
not, you imply that Linux does need one.  This in turn implies, whether 
you intended it or not, that this constitutes a flaw in Linux.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message