On Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 07:12 PM, Donald Keenan wrote: > Does this mean that the act of compiling is always hardware specific? > Is > RedHat Linux compiled to work only on Wintel/IBM machines? YellowDog > compiled for mac processors?
yes. but not only is it hardware specific, it's also OS specific. that is, just because something compiles and runs on Windows on x86, that doesn't mean it'll compile and run on Linux on x86. I think RedHat is available for more than just x86 (wintel). > Is the "compiling" a kind of encryption AND a way to translate it into > a > machine readable form? And the machine readable form is not universal > but hardware specific? think of source code as blue prints to a piece of software. i wouldn't call compiling encryption, though, just translated. encryption implies that something has to be decrypted before it can be used, but machine readable executables are run as-is by the processor. > What about open source code/software? Is this code that is not compiled > and therefore open for enhancement? How does one then make it machine > readable? By using a compiling program? following the 'blue print' analogy above... the only difference between open- and closed-source is that the blue-prints are available for download, too. > Are some Unix/Linux programs and software then not "compiled"? no... it's still compiled. the difference is that you can get blue prints, change them, and recompile them... or use them as part of your project to do something even bigger. > I got a vague and most probably incorrect impression from the article > on > Unix that C and C++ was a language developed to move toward platform > independent coding. Am I way off here? that was the goal. but, just because a program is written in C or C++, that doesn't mean it will be platform independent. it still requires the programmer(s) to put forth some effort. > Again, it sounds like a company like Microsoft might have to open up > some of its code due to the courts. This means they just reveal what > they have to and leave the rest of the software compiled? no... it all still gets compiled. it just means they'll have to give the blueprints away. > Isn't Apple's OS X somewhat open? Are companies like Macromedia given > legal access to how Apple compiles (I keep thinking that this must be a > kind of encryption along with making it machine-specific readable). > Aren't some of the shareware/freeware things out there on version > tracker the result of getting at Apple's "proprietary" > coding/compiling? > Apologies if I'm misconstruing the concepts here (esp. "compiling") every copy of OS X comes with the Developer Tools CD, which gives any programmer who wants them access to the programming libraries in OS X. there's nothing proprietary about them. -- G-Books is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/> and... Small Dog Electronics http://www.smalldog.com | Refurbished Drives | -- Check our web site for refurbished PowerBooks | & CDRWs on Sale! | Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html> G-Books list info: <http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-books.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:G-Books@;mail.maclaunch.com> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:G-Books-off@;mail.maclaunch.com> For digest mode, email: <mailto:G-Books-digest@;mail.maclaunch.com> Subscription questions: <mailto:listmom@;lemlists.com> Archive: <http://www.mail-archive.com/g-books%40mail.maclaunch.com/> Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
