> The big advantage is app developer control. Imagine being able to update
> your customers/users application without being dependent on N different
> distributions somewhat random selection of software, it also avoids "Oh to
> get our next update, you need to update your distro" which is completely
> unacceptible from an administration point of view.
Giving developers more power is almost never what you want to do. You want to give power to the users and system administrators.
Some system administrators are conservative. They just don't want to apply any patches except security updates. They might use RHEL 5 or something like this. They ought to be able to follow this policy without interference from developers.
If developers have to add an #ifdef somewhere in the code to make this happen, it's a small price to pay for stability and security.
> Distro's tend to want monolithic control over everything, even if it
> potentially hurts users and developers. The problem with security updates
> wouldn't be the distro's responsibility if they didn't have control every
> bit of software on your computer.
Users shouldn't have to manually update every piece of software on their computer. If it weren't the distro's responsibility, security would fall on to the users and system administrators-- another burden.
Microsoft would love to have a single update button that you could press to update all the software on your Windows PC. They've made that a reality for all the software they directly control. But they can't do it for third party software.