Re: spatial stuff detail

On Sep 21, 2003, at 6:41 PM, Sean Middleditch wrote:
You are confusing shared libraries with interchangable components. You never, ever repalce teh OS X or Win32 'libc' with another version, for example, but you're quite free to use glibc, dietlibc, etc. w/ Linux.

Isn't libc isn't a shared library? And there's no reason you can't install and use any other libc variants in OS X.

Likewise, the OS X GUI is there to stay and not replaced. The Windows GUI is the same way. yet on Linux, you can use XFree86, another X server, DirectFB, Fresco, etc. And then on top of those, you an run a plain WM, a mini-desktop, or one of several full blown complete destksops liek GNOME, KDE, ROX, XFCE, GNUStep, etc.

You can run X11, KDE, and friends in addition to (or instead of, I suppose) the Aqua GUI in OS X.

Also, the desktops vary a lot. It *really* makes a difference if you have GNOME2.0 or GNOME2.4 from a development standpoint, since apps written for a later version don't work at all with the previous - the API isn't really 'stable' at all, it's just kept backwards compatible. [...]

Compare this to Linux, UNIX, where we have a metric shitload of varying libraries, toolkits, utility apps, etc., many of which aren't anywhere close to stable in ABI, many of which have different versions that aren't co-installable, none of which can be sanely or easily detected, many of which can be installed or compiled in wholly incompatible ways, etc.

*That's* how Linux is more "pluggable" and Windows/OS X more "monolithic."

That sounds like "less stable", not "more pluggable", IMO.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]