Re: GNAT on a multiboot computer

[Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)]

In article <41820f69$0$7073$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be>, Adrien Plisson <aplisson-news@stochastique.net> writes:

> i dream of a system which don't have any f****** conventions as "c:", nor any 
> f****** weird locations as "Documents and Settings" or "/opt/usr/bin", and do 
> not need any installation, ala Macintosh 10 years ago (copy where you want, run).

Some of this certainly pertains to elaborate OS mechanisms to which
application developers choose to conform.

On VMS, for example, copying a program to a particular location and
then using the RUN command works fine.  But...

	If the program uses a shareable image in concert with
	other programs, that shareable image either must be
	in SYS$SHARE or must have a logical name defined.

	If the program uses a separate message image in order
	to support internationalization, that message image must
	be in SYS$MESSAGE or must have a logical name defined.

	If the program documentation supports the DCL command
	HELP/MESSAGE an existing logical name must be modified
	by the system manager.

	If the program is to be invoked by its own native command
	like LJK/SECURITY SHOW ASSESSMENT rather than RUN, the
	SET COMMAND command must be used to establish that command.

And of course any of those steps which will affect other users of the
system must be done by someone with system management privilege.

You can still do the "copy-run" approach or even RUN directly
from the source location of the program, but life gets more
complicated when multiuser environments are involved.  In fact,
for the best security no user should have the right to execute
any program they provided, since they might be inappropriately
trusting the source of that program !