Re: spatial stuff detail

[John Siracusa <siracusa mindspring com>]

On Sep 21, 2003, at 5:19 PM, Hongli Lai wrote:
> John Siracusa wrote:
> > I see it, but I don't agree with it.  First, Linux is no more 
> > "pluggable" than any Unix-ish OS, including OS X (i.e. both have 
> > loadable kernel modules, file system plugins, shared libraries, 
> > etc.).
>
>
> That's not the kind "pluggable" he's talking about. He's talking about 
> how developers treat their software.
> On non-open source systems like MacOS X and Win32, software are 
> usually large and monolithics do-it-alls with (almost) no dependancies 
> or bundle all dependancies with them. That's because those operating 
> systems don't encourage code sharing as much.

Er, how do you figure?  Both OSes use shared libraries extensively.  I 
don't see one as "more shared" than the other.  The fact that most of 
the GUI-related shared libraries in OS X are provided by Apple doesn't 
make OS X any more "monolithic" than Linux in anything but the 
political sense of the word.

(and this is ignoring the Darwin side of things...)
-John