A new definition of libraries (was: Linux Installation)

[Richard Gaskin]

Bob Warren wrote:

> In this thread and the one it arose from, I have not been the slightest 
> bit concerned about discussing the distribution of apps generally in 
> Linux. I have only tried to discuss the distribution of Rev apps. It has 
> now been confirmed again that they do NOT need "installing" in any 
> normal sense of the word and that "standalone" means what it says.

That's pretty much been the message from all contributions to this 
thread in my reading of it.  I never understood the goal of this thread 
from the start, but please don't bother explaining it on my account.

As for "installation", it depends on what one means by that.  For a 
complete user experience, Mac and Windows have a higher standard to 
meet, with users expecting that an application will not merely run but 
will also have icons properly set up for the app and its documents, have 
document associations properly defined, and install a shortcut to itself 
into the Start menu on OSes that have one.

Linux developers have sufficiently lowered expectations there that users 
don't seem to mind doing much of that manually, something that would 
never be tolerated on more consumer-minded OSes.

While this unnecessarily hampers Linux adoption among consumers, meeting 
such low expectations can make a developer's life easier. ;)

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Managing Editor, revJournal
  _______________________________________________________
  Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com