Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.panix2.panix.com!panix2.panix.com!not-for-mail From: kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) Newsgroups: comp.os.vms Subject: Re: Packages Date: 12 Aug 2024 11:03:25 -0000 Organization: Former users of Netcom shell (1989-2000) Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <9c3d1ff56b8e2e1a8cfc3a614c48f845ec4fb20f.camel@munted.eu> Injection-Info: reader1.panix.com; posting-host="panix2.panix.com:166.84.1.2"; logging-data="7978"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com" Bytes: 1856 Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >On Fri, 9 Aug 2024 16:55:58 -0500, Craig A. Berry wrote: > >> In theory, if one knew the locations of *all* of the pieces, one could >> reverse engineer an older kit and build a new one like it with the new >> images and data from an installation. But there are a lot of things >> that could go wrong, depending on what changed between versions. > >Seems like proprietary vendors do *not* have the incentive to support any >kind of modular package management. It's in their advantage to support package management for third-party applications, because it makes it easier for third-party applications to release and support their products. It is against their advantage to support package management for the operating system itself, because it will mean people will strip it down and no two installations will be the same (as often happens with Linux) and this makes support much more difficult. They sell all of these parts and they want you to use them all together and never separate them. Not even to disable Clippy. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."