Linux installation

[Bob Warren]

Sorry, but I'm still struggling with what Jacque has tried to tell me, 
which goes to prove how greatly related motivation and perception can 
be. There's a picture on my living-room wall, and if it's not straight I 
cannot sleep at night.

These are my definitions, which you might like to challenge as being 
inappropriate:

1. An "executable" (e.g. a file produced by VB in Windows) is not a 
program, it's half a program. Nor is it executable. It finds its other 
half in the operating system it is running under (in the form of 
libraries), and when the 2 halves are put together, it can do something.

2. A "standalone" is a whole program, not half. It does not refer to any 
libraries at all in the runtime operating system**, and can be executed 
directly.

[** except perhaps totally invariable ones - if such a thing exists??]

What Jacque seems to be trying to tell me is that in spite of the 
denomination, Rev "standalones" for Linux are not pure. They mainly have 
the characteristics of the 2nd category, but they have some of the 
characteristics of the 1st.

Although this does not seem to fit in with an ideal situation, is it 
certainly true in Linux? Can anyone give me any examples of libraries in 
the OS certainly used at runtime by all Rev Linux programs? And if Rev 
does use such libraries in its "impure" standalones, is there any chance 
that either Rev will not find them in a particular distro or that they 
become outdated?

Hoping for your patience and the benefits of your experience.

Bob

P.S. Interestingly, RB refers to "Applications" rather than 
"Standalones" as RR does.