Erast Benson wrote:
I think Google folks did a nice job on Google Earth for GNU/Linux. Their
applications does not depends on any sort of distribution's permutations
and installs all needed libraries in a single user home directory called
"google-earth". They do not use any system package and install it as a
pure add-on application, self-contained and self-sufficient. That means
it doesn't really matter whether QT is pre-installed or not. Their
installer looks really simple, slick, fast starting and without any
internal system packaging dependencies.
I think we are seeing real example on how closed-sourced add-on GUI
application for UNIX/Linux should look like to be successful. IMHO
Sounds a bit like the approach of current mozilla code or even legacy
Netscape code (that statically linked with motif to avoid platform
differences).
I understand where you're coming from, but from a philosophical point of
view, that's throwing out all of the advantages we have with dynamic
linking to avoid the problems we have as an industry with agreeing on
stable, forward compatible interfaces, right?
Take for instance a major security hole in libfoo. Your distribution/OS
issues a patch for libfoo. You apply the patch, and everything that
uses libfoo is now safe. However, BigApp X, to avoid having to do lots
of testing, make life easier on its users and avoid the problems that
incompatible implementations of various pseudo-specifications across
patches/packages/distros/kernels/builds/projects, bundled it's own
private implementation of libfoo. Well, now it's out of date, and needs
its own patch...
There are other things you lose. Like efficiency (in memory once
regardless of the number of apps/users) and the ability for a
patch/upgrade to introduce new functionality or platform level
integration that doesn't break compatibility.
In my humble opinion, the fact that Google Earth works well is probably
more a testament to the fact you can write good (or bad) code with any
compiler/language/toolkit. Some make it easier than others, but we
can't say it became a good app because it bundled it's own
implementation of common components. :)
Personally, I'd be more impressed if it made use of whatever was around
on the OS (and libs, windowing toolkits, etc.), ran on many of them AND
was a very well done application.
That's much more work for someone though-- either Google if they figured
out the least common denominator, or the various OS/toolkits if they
suddenly got religion and put much more effort into compatibility.
- Matt
--
Matt Ingenthron - Technical Specialist, Web Services
Sun Microsystems, Inc. - Client Solutions
http://blogs.sun.com/mingenthron/
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: 310-242-6439
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
