Sorry, but I'm still struggling with what Jacque has tried to tell me,
which goes to prove how greatly related motivation and perception can
be. There's a picture on my living-room wall, and if it's not straight I
cannot sleep at night.
These are my definitions, which you might like to challenge as being
inappropriate:
1. An "executable" (e.g. a file produced by VB in Windows) is not a
program, it's half a program. Nor is it executable. It finds its other
half in the operating system it is running under (in the form of
libraries), and when the 2 halves are put together, it can do something.
2. A "standalone" is a whole program, not half. It does not refer to any
libraries at all in the runtime operating system**, and can be executed
directly.
[** except perhaps totally invariable ones - if such a thing exists??]
What Jacque seems to be trying to tell me is that in spite of the
denomination, Rev "standalones" for Linux are not pure. They mainly have
the characteristics of the 2nd category, but they have some of the
characteristics of the 1st.
Although this does not seem to fit in with an ideal situation, is it
certainly true in Linux? Can anyone give me any examples of libraries in
the OS certainly used at runtime by all Rev Linux programs? And if Rev
does use such libraries in its "impure" standalones, is there any chance
that either Rev will not find them in a particular distro or that they
become outdated?
Hoping for your patience and the benefits of your experience.
Bob
P.S. Interestingly, RB refers to "Applications" rather than
"Standalones" as RR does.
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
