"Karsten M. Self" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... [...]
I'm not sure whether I understand every point you make (I read your message twice but there are still points I don't understand), but I think I understand your main point: A binary distribution may not work on all Linuxes, but source distribution works because writing a portable code is not hard. That may be so. You said that I was moving the goalpost. I think you said so because I didn't make a clear distinction between a source distribution and a binary one. OK, that was my fault. But, if writing a portable code is not hard, why commercial vendors write a portable code, compile it for all Unixes/Linuxes, and distribute the binaries? Taking my example, why doesn't Intel compile their code not only for RedHat, but also for other distributions? I understand that they don't want to give away their source code, but at least they can distribute binaries for different Linuxes. I *guess* that doing so would incur some cost which the vendor doesn't want to pay. If Debian had as large a share as RedHat, they would see the cost worth. By the way, I'm not much interested in a debate on whether closed-source is a good idea or not. At least, not for this thread. I didn't quote your words because I did't think I can answer you point by point. Please let me know if I missed something important. Cheers, Ryo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
