|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
John VanSickle 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;
Yes.
> whether it was your intent or
> not, you imply that Linux does need one.
Arguable, but I'll play along.
> This in turn implies, whether
> you intended it or not, that this constitutes a flaw in Linux.
Here I lose you, just as Darren did. I can only repeat what he said:
Your reasoning is valid only if you consider needing a package manager a
flaw.
--
CONgress (n) - Opposite of PROgress
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |