> Why can some companies do this and Adobe not? Adobe *could* do it, but they don't want to because it's extremely unpleasant and annoying.
> What do they need? An "installer api" that is used by each and every > linux/unix distro? Amongst other things, yes. They do exist. Autopackage is one, for instance. There are various issues with all of these programs though that make them hard to use. Adobe have looked at autopackage in the past, but I believe they wanted to use the same installation system also with other UNIXes like Solaris, and we don't support that. > One version of one distro is equivalent with one version of Windows. There is basically one, maybe two versions of Windows you need to support - XP and 2000. They are very, very similar. Doing this is really easy and you get 95% of the market. Support ABC random distro and you get, what, a fraction of a percent? It's not worth it. > What I mean is, each distribution is a completely different operating > system but built with common parts like the linux kernel. Yet, > conveniently, some think that everything that uses the linux kernel is > by definition the same operating system. If it's not the same operating system then there's no point us even being here, because nobody will EVER write software for any of them, because there aren't enough people using one particular distro. The only reason so many apps exist for Linux is because you can write one once and have potentially many users (and therefore developers). > Of course. One needs to write an install program, it's as simple as that. I suggest you review the autopackage documentation and maybe code before claiming it's simple ... it really isn't at all. _______________________________________________ Desktop_architects mailing list Desktop_architects@lists.osdl.org https://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop_architects
