iB::Topic::Self Contained Applications

	Damn Small Linux :: Damn Small Linux Board The DSL Forums

» Welcome Guest
[ Log In :: Register ]

Damn Small Linux Board » Non-DSL Topics » water cooler » Self Contained Applications

		Mini-ITX Boards Sale, Fanless BareBones Mini-ITX, Bootable 1G DSL USBs, 533MHz Fanless PC <-- SALE $200 each!
		Get The Official Damn Small Linux Book. DSL Market , Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic

Pages: (2) </ [1] 2 >/

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Topic: Self Contained Applications

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

roberts

Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: Feb. 15 2007,01:43

I created the UCI, mounted commpressed self contained, applicaitons for DSL a very long time ago.

Today I read about the exciting break through technology offered by Klik

Klik cmg? A compressed mounted self contained application.

I strongly believe in this concept. The concept of self contained applications are rooted in RISC OS. The current MAC OS uses this very concept; application directories.

With DSL small size and targeted small memory space, I compressed the self contained application and made them mount and unmountable. Truly the FIRST "un-package" for DSL/Linux.

Also of note is the ROX Desktop which uses application directories.

I am glad to see the concept is spreading.

Edited by roberts on Feb. 15 2007,01:44

mikshaw

Group: Members
Posts: 4856
Joined: July 2004

Posted: Feb. 15 2007,03:35

I assume you're talking about this:
http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/02/09/0859248

I read that yesterday and made a "ppppth" sound with my lips. I thought calling it "unique" was rather presumptuous.
Almost posted, but i didn't feel like being an "anonymous coward" nor did I want to bother signing up =)

Anyway, the idea of being portable across other distros is appealing, although I don't believe it to be true (no way to know what is available from one distro to the next).

There's also the limit of 8 simultaneous packages...that's so last year =o)

--------------
http://www.tldp.org/LDP/intro-linux/html/index.html

humpty

Group: Members
Posts: 655
Joined: Sep. 2005

Posted: Feb. 25 2007,20:38

i hope one day all apps will be this way.

there's still the problem of dependencies and dynamically linked
libraries. we can't expect statically linked apps to lug their own o.s's with them so perhaps a standard for a minimum library set is called for? a sort of win32 for linux?

(i just hope everything doesn't end up as java).

roberts

Group: Members
Posts: 4983
Joined: Oct. 2003

Posted: Feb. 25 2007,23:14

Yes, I wish the LSB would establish a minimum set of libraries as the core. Everything else as application directories, i.e., self contained.

But the more I read, the more the major distributions are rejecting this idea. Seem protecting their "IP", i.e., package managers is more important than a common good.

And those who try to implement are not that popular, e.g., GoboLinux

Maybe I would feel more at home with a RISC OS machine, or even MAC OSX. But I am too old to change now.

I wonder how well uci and "stow" would work for DSL?

meltdown_override Offline

Group: Awaiting Authorisation
Posts: 44
Joined: June 2006

Posted: Mar. 08 2007,04:05

I've been thinking of doing something similar with a media player. Of coarse there would be an extremly small kernel with only the supports needed for the operation of the xinelike player. The xterm would be integrated within the kernel. Has this been done?

5 replies since Feb. 15 2007,01:43

< Next Oldest | Next Newest >

[ Track this topic :: Email this topic :: Print this topic ]

Pages: (2) </ [1] 2 >/

Damn Small Linux Board » Non-DSL Topics » water cooler » Self Contained Applications