Maybe I did, but you still missed mine and added zero additional value to the conversation. So let me spoonfeed you my point:

The OP claims that 99.99% of all websites back in the day were shit, just like 99.99% of all iphone apps today are shit. He then makes a remark that suggests that Debian is a superior platform because the number of debian apps is small/manageable.

Now, I pointed out that out of the vast majority of shit of the early web came a bunch of valuable companies, and I conjecture that it was in part due to vast number of websites were built that it became _more_ likely that the web as a platform would be successful and that some websites would become hugely valuable.

From that I consider it a risky bet to say that the vast number of iPhone apps in itself makes the platform inferior.

I then finished off by pointing out that no debian _apps_ that I was aware of had in any way become as successful as a bunch of websites I could care to mention. Maybe it was that which confused you - they are separate but related points.

I don't think he missed your point at all. Would you say that GCC as one of the debian apps others here have mentioned was less successful?

It arguably helps power Facebook, Ebay, Google, Amazon,... and any number of other of those sites you mentioned. Or perhaps Python? is it less successful?

Or perhaps you defined successful in terms of revenue only? In which case that's a very narrowly defined term and the case could be made that such a narrowly defined definition of success adds "zero additional value" to the conversation.

Dude that makes no sense, sorry. Re-read my comment; my point is: high number of apps does not correlate negatively with importance of platform or value of whatever is created on that platform.

But it doesn't correlate positively either. The 'article' is in response to someone claiming that having X apps created in Y years obviously means that a platform is 'more quality' than another, which is rubbish logic.

I respectfully disagree.