Re: Linux, X, ld, gcc, linking, shared libraries and stuff

Beth wrote: 
...then a driver would be a program that makes use
of that "direct access" to provide a standardised "interface" to
applications (for "portability")...

How odd, we seem to be on a similar wavelength. I was considering merging EXs (EXecutables), DLs (Dynamic Libraries), and DDs (Device Drivers) into a single file type: DOs (Dynamic Objects). To load up a driver, you literally execute it like an executable. Using it is just like using a Dynamic Library (how this is done is currently being worked on).

The idea, however, came from a different problem. I was hoping to support the concept of mounting virtual disks (IMG, IMA, ISO, VHD, VFD, etc.) like actual disks without "bending over backwords" to get it to work. This would require the capability to make a "Device Driver" for such a thing. Well, if you're going to try unifying this stuff, why not go whole hog.

(Yes, I see the relation to the Unified Model.)

(non-GUI OSes need not apply
here)...


:(

(just like we'd never
likely see that "UNIX subsystem" on NT because that would be "supporting
the enemy" for them...

Well, if they introduce a *NIX subsystem into NT, then technically, it'd allow for more people to program for their OS (though it works the other way to).

(OK, so there'd be a massive flux of programmers going from Windows to Linux through this and no one comming from Linux to Windows.)

Beth :) 

--
The above was written by NoDot.

Visit the Website of NoDot:
<www.geocities.com/nodot1989/>
.