
Permalink for comment 496978
RE[5]: binary for windows....
by bogomipz on Fri 11th Nov 2011 19:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: binary for windows.... "
Member since:


The difference is that the kernel is kept simple. The complexity is handled by a package manager or similar instead. No dynamic linker to exploit or carefully harden.

If you don't see any difference, it means both models should work equally well, so no reason for all the complexity.


What do you mean by this? I'm talking about using normal static libraries, as they existed before dynamic linking, and still exist to this day. Some distros even include static libs together with shared objects in the same package (or together with headers in a -dev package).


I may have done a poor job of explaining properly. What I meant was that the program is delivered in a package with an object file that is not yet ready to run. This package depends on library packages, just like today, but those packages contain static rather than shared libraries. The install process then links the program.


No, just the normal package manager dependency resolution.

What you really are searching for is application folders.

No, to the contrary! App folders use dynamic linking for libraries included with the application. I'm talking about using static libraries even when delivering them separately.

The system you might want to look at is:

Zero-install is an alternative to package managers. My proposal could be implemented by either.

Reply Parent Score: 2