On Sat, 06 Aug 2011 20:17:55 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> On 8/6/2011 12:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> distributing a tarball doesn't make it "real Linux software",
> 
> No he doesn't. He says that's one way you can tell. And obviously he's
> not speaking technically. I.e., I think you're reading way too much into
> the part that talks about the motivation for making it work with Linux
> package managers.
> 
>> If he's "obviously talking about the distros that actually have
>> packages", then the point becomes meaningless because it's self-
>> referential.
> 
> I disagree. There are lots of lame ports of Windows software that's
> distributed as a tarball for Ubuntu, for example.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Jim

Post a reply to this message