Posted by: Anonymous
on November 12, 2007 01:35 AM
Well, thanks for proving my point by suggesting that I might be a MS troll. Additionally, your point is wrong. With Open Source software, nobody is forced to use installers. The source still exists, and the distro package will also continue to exist. But the existance of installers would be a nice feature to have for those who want it. And these people are no idiots that install just about anything from dubious sites. They are not your average moms and dads. They are PC enthusiast who like to try new release without wasting their time with compiling stuff from source. They are people who even recommend good software to their friends if it's good and useful software. Just imaging the success of, say, Napster: It wouldn't have been possible with the centralized Linux distribution system. Also consider the success of Firefox: It would also not have been possible without an installer (for Windows). Additionally, Linux distros are also well known to break things during dist-upgrades every now and then. And the non-existance makes you forced to upgrade your distribution to get new versions of software. Also, the Mac way of installing new software is very similar to the Windows way and they don't suffer from malware. So, it's quite possible to have software installers that simply work without compromising security. Additionally, you're average mom'n'dad are still going to rely on the distribution packages. They won't use installers, anyway, because they don't install new sowftare in the first place. So, the more interesting question is: Why do you want people to lock-in the distribution system?