Hi Ujwal, On Sunday, 1 June 2008 at 7:54:40 -0700, Ujwal (RUBBOT) wrote: > > Hard to imagine... LInux appllication are bigger than windows. > As i know flash player 10 beta is 3.7 mb for linux and 1.7 mb for > windows? > 3.7 - 1.7 = 2.0MiB > two times bigger. Might be the adobe developers are not familiar with > linux or they don't know programming or they pasted same code two > times or so to create flash player for linux. As i tested it worked > for mozilla only neither for Opera or nor Konqueror. although it's a > Beta. A lots of bug with flash player , last time windows was hacked > due to flash player's vunarabilities.
.... > So why not to give off flash or Silverlight to something new bigger > and greater and perfect in some extent. > The ultimate HTML5 + svg plasmoids with script support + phonon media > streaming. > This is Kde/Qt part what from GNOME or microsoft or adobe or any? > > Soft to think.. > In fact linux application mostly never provides libraries so they are > too small, .... > The XMMS is less than 700KiB, same thing in windows will be more than > a MiB with libraries it need. Linux application are extreamly smaller > without libraries. ok. xmms is just a binary (or if you prefer a stripped+elf binary on my little x86). They ask libraries such as libchoila.so, libmomo.so etc... for functionality (could be linked statically / dynamically). So, its a bit isolated in that sense and app developers can simply use those libraries without knowing "how" it is being used (although if they want they can certainly go through the library source). > I don't think giving every application with attached libraries is good > in linux, cuz it's a way to create much more vunarabilities. I don't > recommend to give application with libraries. > Windows and Mac provides libraries with their application but why not > Linux? > Might be windows crashes much with non supported libraries with in > them. > Even mac crashed if you did a wrong update. > but what about linux? it crashes very least in stable and crashes the > Most (world record in crashing) in unstable. After all it is stable vs. unstable. > The things behind this post is also why not to provide libraries with > application like Mac and Windows in linux too? linux libraries uses modular architecture. All libraries that provide certain functionality are seperated from the binary itself. It need not be the case; but hey, it certainly helps during coding and deployment. Also, being modular means that binaries are easily updated due to the requirement during link-time. Say, x() in libchoila.so provides some functionaility. If other binaries link-into that and depend on that library which provides the implmentation of x(), then in subsequent versions if x() adds / deletes arguments or changes the return type, it can certainly break the binaries that depend on it for functionality. That is why developers try to ensure that subsequent / previous versions don't break because of change in functional scope / runtime dependencies and so on. Just to make it clear, this isn't a requirement. You can dump the whole header+implementation in a C source and run a compiler+linker through it. But that's hardly modular now. Or, is it? ;) Microsoft Windows and other OS uses very similar strategy in their system afaik (seperated concerns etc..). cheers
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
