On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 20:31:06 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 10/16/2011 20:18, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I cited a counterexample, and you changed the criteria.
> 
> Yes. I clarified.  Why, are we keeping score?

Not much point, just hard to debate when the criteria keep changing.

>> They do indeed.  I'm sure they could work out a licensing arrangement
>> for "approved by Microsoft" software if they wanted to, and take a cut
>> for distribution.
>>
>> Apple does, after all.
> 
> Well, as I said, so does Microsoft.
> 
> Say, here's an idea. Why don't you go work for Microsoft and explain to
> them why they're losing so much money? :-)  I mean, seriously, why are
> you arguing to *me* that Microsoft should be offering this service for a
> fee?

I think the likelihood of Microsoft hiring me is about equal to mine of 
seeking employment with them.

>> So, that can happen on both Linux and Windows.  I'm not sure what your
>> point is.
> 
> My point is that in spite of how I'm interpreting your claims, Windows
> does indeed have "software management elements" in their OS and
> supporting software.

I never said that they didn't have "software management elements" in the 
OS and supporting software.  I'm talking about those elements in a 
software distribution system.

Jim

Post a reply to this message