On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 20:25:59 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 8/5/2011 19:00, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 14:19:32 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> It's the choice of the
>>> package manager to use one technique over the other, not the choice of
>>> the file system.
>>
>> Yes, it's a choice of whether to rename the file or delete it.  That's
>> not really my point.
> 
> OK. Then I'm not seeing your point. What statement do you think is
> actually incorrect?  I must be missing something, because you're not the
> only person who has told me there are incorrect assertions in the
> article, but I've not gotten anyone else to actually say what they are
> either, other than arguing that Linux's package management isn't
> "inferior".

"one distinction between "lame port of a Windows app" and "real Linux 
software" is exactly whether you distribute as a tarball or as a package."

Factually incorrect, as I said, ask anyone using Slackware what they 
think of that statement and they'll laugh you out of the room.

"Secondly, and more importantly, we knew that regardless of what we did 
for Google Chrome the Linux distros would attempt to stuff Chromium into 
their package manager even when they know it breaks the app, much like 
they've done to Firefox."

Factually incorrect, since package management systems that use RPM or DEB 
allow for the creation of packages that won't install if a conflicting 
package is installed.

"Now that I've summarized it in these terms it sounds a little 
depressing, but there it is"

Factually incorrect, because he got the previous two statements 
completely wrong.

Jim

Post a reply to this message