5 ms·

However, on a technical note, 'relocatable program' usually refers to a completely different concept, namely that the programs binary has relocation entries so

However, on a technical note, 'relocatable program' usually refers to a completely different concept, namely that the programs binary has relocation entries so it can be 'relocated' and executed at any address range (thing Address Space Layout randomization for binaries or libraries that will be linked).

mwilliamson 13y ago
You're absolutely right, but "relocatable" was the best word I could find that's used for the concept that was relatively accurate. The other usual adjective is "portable", but I felt that was misleading since you can't just stick the binaries on a USB stick, since the target computer needs to have whack-run installed, which requires root access. Suggestions for alternatives are extremely welcome!
- palebluedot 13y ago
  I had the same concern - I too was confused when I read 'relocatable'. Some suggestions: * Movable * Location-Independent * Path-Independent * Path Neutral
- innguest 13y ago
  We've been calling them "portable" much before usb sticks were around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable I suggest you reconsider. :) I've been waiting to see a .dmg equivalent for Linux.
  - asveikau 13y ago
    > I've been waiting to see a .dmg equivalent for Linux. In a very literal technical sense I have no idea what this means. Linux can mount a file as if it is a disk with -o loop. I suspect you're really talking about something else. App bundles perhaps?
    - lmm 13y ago
      A single file on the filesystem, that acts as a complete application (i.e. can be copied to another system, and run on that new system by double-clicking on it, etc.)
      - asveikau 13y ago
        It sounds like you're really talking about app bundles plus some kind of container (to make the app bundle a single file instead of a directory). The thing about that is various *nix machines do not have a standardized user interface. Every Mac has Finder for example, so if Finder wants to call into various components (eg. to mount a .dmg on a double click) or create a metaphor layered on top of the directory concept (app bundle), there are a number of places to put that. A Linux system has no similar "one place" to make that consistent where it will be seen by everyone. Personally I consider that a feature rather than a bug. One person's idea of a better way of working could break another person's perfectly good workflow. If you want a Mac, get a Mac, and leave the rest of us alone. :-)

mwilliamson 13y ago

You're absolutely right, but "relocatable" was the best word I could find that's used for the concept that was relatively accurate. The other usual adjective is "portable", but I felt that was misleading since you can't just stick the binaries on a USB stick, since the target computer needs to have whack-run installed, which requires root access. Suggestions for alternatives are extremely welcome!

palebluedot 13y ago
I had the same concern - I too was confused when I read 'relocatable'. Some suggestions: * Movable * Location-Independent * Path-Independent * Path Neutral
innguest 13y ago
We've been calling them "portable" much before usb sticks were around: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Executable I suggest you reconsider. :) I've been waiting to see a .dmg equivalent for Linux.
- asveikau 13y ago
  > I've been waiting to see a .dmg equivalent for Linux. In a very literal technical sense I have no idea what this means. Linux can mount a file as if it is a disk with -o loop. I suspect you're really talking about something else. App bundles perhaps?
  - lmm 13y ago
    A single file on the filesystem, that acts as a complete application (i.e. can be copied to another system, and run on that new system by double-clicking on it, etc.)
    - asveikau 13y ago
      It sounds like you're really talking about app bundles plus some kind of container (to make the app bundle a single file instead of a directory). The thing about that is various *nix machines do not have a standardized user interface. Every Mac has Finder for example, so if Finder wants to call into various components (eg. to mount a .dmg on a double click) or create a metaphor layered on top of the directory concept (app bundle), there are a number of places to put that. A Linux system has no similar "one place" to make that consistent where it will be seen by everyone. Personally I consider that a feature rather than a bug. One person's idea of a better way of working could break another person's perfectly good workflow. If you want a Mac, get a Mac, and leave the rest of us alone. :-)