Linux installation

[J. Landman Gay]

Bob Warren wrote:

> You may be right, and in fact what you recommend may represent a "safe" 
> policy, but that is not exactly what I ran into. I produced a Realbasic 
> module that I thought was a "standalone", but later discovered that it 
> was an "executable" (i.e. not a "standalone").

You probably shouldn't get too hung up on the terminology. In general, 
"standalone" means "executable". The term is a holdover from the 
HyperCard days, and was invented 10 or 12 years ago to distinguish 
between stacks, which require a separate engine or Player, and 
applications, which "stand alone" because they do not need a Player. In 
HyperCard, a standalone simply meant that the engine was embedded into 
the file on disk. And that is pretty much what Rev does too.

Revolution extends the process a bit by embedding as many resources from 
the IDE as it can (script and image libraries, mostly,) but 
"standalones" still depend heavily on certain features of the OS. If you 
think of them as "executables" you will probably be more on-track.

-- 
Jacqueline Landman Gay         |     jacque at hyperactivesw.com
HyperActive Software           |     http://www.hyperactivesw.com