Re: Stand-alone Executables

2007-02-01 Thread John Carter
On Fri, 2 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Occasionally you see proprietary programs that include their own version of libraries, but generally there is no need for that in open source programs. The proprietary programs on Linux I have had the occassional run in with either... * statically

Re: Stand-alone Executables

2007-02-01 Thread nick
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> By default the linker generates executables that link to DLL's such as >>> libc. etc. etc. >>> >> >> But don't windows programs, even sol.exe, require dll's too? > > > Certainly a few bouts of DLL Hell will convince you that they do exist > in Wi

Re: Stand-alone Executables

2007-02-01 Thread John Carter
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By default the linker generates executables that link to DLL's such as libc. etc. etc. But don't windows programs, even sol.exe, require dll's too? Certainly a few bouts of DLL Hell will convince you that they do exist in Windows, and if anythin

Re: Stand-alone Executables

2007-02-01 Thread Carl Cerecke
On 01/02/07, John Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: The gcc link option -static is the one you want. A small bonus to compensate you for the Fat size of the executable... It runs a teensy bit faster. (So long as you have the RAM) I think it is a teensy bit faster in about the same amount th

Re: Stand-alone Executables

2007-01-31 Thread Kerry Mayes
Nup, I was scared! On 01/02/07, Andrew Errington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Besides, I didn't want to freak out the Kale-dude. I think, however, that John has described The Other Bit quite admirably without scaring anybody. A

Re: Stand-alone Executables

2007-01-31 Thread Andrew Errington
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 16:06, you wrote: > > On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Andrew Errington wrote: > >> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:39, you wrote: > >>> Dear Linuxer, > >>> I was wondering, in Linux can you have stand alone apps? For example, > >>> "sol.exe" is Solitaire on Windows, It can be run without being > >>>

Re: Stand-alone Executables

2007-01-31 Thread nick
> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Andrew Errington wrote: > >> On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:39, you wrote: >>> Dear Linuxer, >>> I was wondering, in Linux can you have stand alone apps? For example, >>> "sol.exe" is Solitaire on Windows, It can be run without being >>> 'Installed'. So I guess I am asking can you hav

Re: Stand-alone Executables

2007-01-31 Thread John Carter
On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, Andrew Errington wrote: On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:39, you wrote: Dear Linuxer, I was wondering, in Linux can you have stand alone apps? For example, "sol.exe" is Solitaire on Windows, It can be run without being 'Installed'. So I guess I am asking can you have programs that you

Re: Stand-alone Executables

2007-01-31 Thread Kale Worsley
Cool. Thanks. On 2/1/07, Andrew Errington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:39, you wrote: > Dear Linuxer, > I was wondering, in Linux can you have stand alone apps? For example, > "sol.exe" is Solitaire on Windows, It can be run without being > 'Installed'. So I guess I am ask

Re: Stand-alone Executables

2007-01-31 Thread Andrew Errington
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 11:39, you wrote: > Dear Linuxer, > I was wondering, in Linux can you have stand alone apps? For example, > "sol.exe" is Solitaire on Windows, It can be run without being > 'Installed'. So I guess I am asking can you have programs that you don't > install and can just run off yo

Stand-alone Executables

2007-01-31 Thread Kale Worsley
Dear Linuxer, I was wondering, in Linux can you have stand alone apps? For example, "sol.exe" is Solitaire on Windows, It can be run without being 'Installed'. So I guess I am asking can you have programs that you don't install and can just run off your desktop or something to that nature. Thank