On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 18:10:18 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/9/2011 16:14, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 14:34:50 -0700, Darren New wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/9/2011 14:04, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> How is it that it would cost more to host a repository for software
>>>> for one platform than the other?
>>>
>>> Insurance. Management. Stuff like that. Basically, overhead and risk
>>> abatement.
>>
>> So, the same kinds of things that you have to be careful of with Linux
>> repositories as well.
> 
> No. People putting things into a Linux repository aren't going to sue
> them for failing to distribute it properly. Nobody is going to sue Red
> Hat when Reader crashes their machines. Etc.

Are you sure about that?  And of course, why would it be any different 
for Windows?  If Acrobat Reader crashed a Windows box, it would be 
Adobe's problem regardless of if Microsoft distributed the file or if 
they got it from Adobe.

>> That's why, for example, the official openSUSE repos don't have any
>> proprietary codecs or device drivers in them.  Because of liability,
>> insurance, and management.
> 
> Well, there you go, then. Why are you asking why Microsoft doesn't do
> it, then? There are tons of repositories of free Windows software that
> Microsoft doesn't run.

I should clarify that the Fluendo codecs are in there - and are properly 
licensed in order to be in there.  I always forget about those. :)

Point is, openSUSE is just one distro and made their decision on it, but 
you can add the Packman repository and add the other codecs if you so 
desire (and then the burden of liability falls to the user, since Packman 
is non-US - based in Germany, IIRC).

But a "repository" for Windows is just a "download" site.  It doesn't 
include actual software management elements per se.

Jim

Post a reply to this message