Quote Originally Posted by ean5533 View Post
That's a very long conversation, but suffice it to say that it flies in the face of traditional Linux software development. If you are in favor of static bundling, you have a whole lot of people that you're going to need to convince. I don't know enough about the topic to make a bulletproof argument either way, but my gut tells me that static bundling is a bad path to start walking down.
There's this weird BSD distro...it's kind of rare, so you might not have heard of it. I think it's called "OSX" or something?

Quote Originally Posted by ean5533 View Post
That sounds like a silly way to handle the problem. Now a commercial software vendor is tied to a package maintainer for each and every distribution they want to support.
No, a vendor is tied to the tarball they release. Distro users are tied to the package maintainer, and only if they have a valid license file. Autodesk is a decent example (though their licensing software is an arse pain at times). This applies all the way down your post. Distros refusing to package is not the vendor's fault. Dependencies are not the vendor's problem. That's why we have distros.

Quote Originally Posted by plonoma View Post
We need a unified packaging system.
No. What we need are companies who have been educated to understand the role of distributions in distributing software and distros that aren't getting in their users' way by not packaging software the users want. It's not that complicated.

...the current 'look at me, this new gimmick in my environment/distro that asks for all applications to be rewritten is totally awesome!' attitude.
Erm...the only distro I see doing that is Ubuntu because they're obsessed with iterating on the wheel so they can run their users over more efficiently. (This may be unfair, but having tried Unity, I am shocked at how poor it is.)