Lets re-invent religion.

https://www.worldcourier.com/

This is one we use all the time.

>This amount outweighs their research and development (R&D) costs, despite the industry's frequent claim that high drug prices allow them to innovate and design new drugs.

R&D is one thing, but most drugs fail at the clinical trial stage. This money (hundreds of millions per drug) is just gone, unlike R&D which might result in new tech or at least a patent. For Oncology its even worse, its close to a 95% failure rate. Simply taxing companies won't make their drugs successful. Large pharma companies rely on a few blockbuster products for their profits and they milk them dry. This is standard corporate greed/behavior, but it certainly seems offputting because we're dealing with peoples lives. Personally, I think its inevitable that there is going to be some form of nationalization for a protected class of life-saving medication.

https://www.labiotech.eu/trends-news/clinical-trials-success...

Yeah, I don't see Windows in the top 5.

Sure, but I can install s/w built for Windows XP into Windows 11 and it will just run 20 years later w/o modification - And I can do this with a large amount of commercial software, so its not a special case example which you can demonstrate on any OS. Simply not possible on any other desktop OS. Even if you have the source (which you won't for commercial s/w), its not just a simple recompile after 20 years.

>You don't need to use dependencies from the system. If you're compiling yourself, you can either make them static, or use your custom location. In either case, there are no conflicts to deal with

Static linking glibc.. yeah. :)

>If you're using whole app packages, then you don't care about system deps at all. Flatpak apps ship their whole environment. AppImage apps do too, just without full isolation. (https://appimage.github.io/apps/ entries are all "download-and-run")

Yet another "standard" that ultimately will fracture the deployment of software. These are just buggy half-baked standards anyway. Vendor releases 32bit AppImage and goes out of business, it stops working on 64bit OS.

I don't think you guys really get the insane backwards compatibility effort that Microsoft does to help keep line of business applications running.

Then you can't have those dependencies managed by a package manager, which means you'll constantly be compiling (and dealing with conflicts yourself). This is not a viable path forward as it seems to be presented here.

>You have so many ways to do this - same as you're doing on windows.

On Windows I copy a binary and run it w/o giving a crap about the OS updates. Vastly different workflows for it to be called "same".