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] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                    anl

Post a reply to this message