Linux-Advocacy Digest #301, Volume #35 Sat, 16 Jun 01 13:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (Peter Hayes)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Chad Myers")
Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and ignorance...)
("Chad Myers")
Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and ignorance...)
("Chad Myers")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: OT: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and
ignorance...) ("Chad Myers")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Cyberbear")
Re: OT: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and
ignorance...) ("Chad Myers")
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux
starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("Chad
Myers")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Mark)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Mark)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Mark)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Mark)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (Mark)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Cyberbear")
Re: More microsoft innovation (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:15:52 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:48:06 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 14:19:23 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > ("Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> > >"macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >> That's absolutely true -- and falls under the Fair Use Doctrine I
> > >> already described to you.
> > >>
> > >> But for Microsoft to create a piece of software that automatically
> makes
> > >> changes to the content does not.
> > >
> > >So it's not all-right for MS to create a browser where you can shut-down
> > >sound/javascript/images/ etc?
> >
> > That's not adding or changing content to the site.
>
> Try to tell it to the web designer.
> It's certainly changing content.
It's only changing presentation. No links are altered. It's also entirely
under your control. SmartTags aren't.
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:02:52 GMT
"Michael Sims" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On 16 Jun 2001 05:26:12 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Smith) wrote:
>
> >The way Microsoft solved DLL Hell in Win2K is by not allowing X or Y to
> >install a new foo.dll into the system directories. Instead, X installs
> >foo.dll 1.1 in X's directory, and Y installs foo.dll 1.2 in Y's
> >directory. X and Y each use the one they installed, so everyone is
> >theoretically happy. Of course, this won't always work, but it is
> >usually a vast improvement.
>
> Any links or FAQs as to how this works exactly? I'm curious. Does
> this depend on the application playing along (i.e. does it require the
> application to use Windows Installer, etc.). If I take 2 or 3 old
> Win32 apps (designed originally to run under Win9x) that I know have
> conflicts, is Win2K smart enough to intercept the installers and
> redirect the *.DLL's to different locations?
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/techart/dlldanger1.htm
It's not always smart enough to reroute it to different locations,
but it won't allow the installer to replace a system DLL which is
probably the biggest reason for DLL Hell-type problems.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and ignorance...)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:11:36 GMT
"Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Chad Myers wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >> Yeah, when Americans say "liberal" they mean something like
> > > >> "socialist". They can't say "socialist" because they've already warped
> > > >> that to mean "communist", which of course has been twisted to mean
> > > >> "unamerican".
> > > >>
> > > >> Unfortunately, it leaves no word for them to describe what we would
> > > >> call liberals. Libertarians are almost there, but have some illiberal
> > > >> kinks.
> > > >
> > > >What? Libertarians are as far from liberals/communists as you can get.
> > >
> > > I'm really at loss how to respond to this post. My first thought was it
was
> > > joke, and I laughed. Then I saw it was Chad and we all know that level of
> > > subtlety is well beyond him. Then I tried to frame a careful and
> > > thoughtful response, but only got about halfway through it before I
thought
> > > "Fuck it - just ploink him", but if I did that I'd miss out his other
> > > entertaining comments. What a dilemma.
> > >
> > > So what do you all think? How should I reply to him?
> >
> > Ok, first, you're from the UK, so your definition of Libertarian may
> > be different. In the US, Libertarians are gun-toting veterans who
> > believe that the government is way too intrusive and that social
> > programs like Welfare and Social Security are destroying the moral
> > fabric of America.
> >
> > Whereas, Liberals believe that we should have more government programs
> > to protect everything from wildlife, to the poor, to the sick. They
> > believe in national healthcare, national retirement programs (SS),
> > more Welfare, etc.
> >
> > I don't know how the two could be farther apart.
It's funny, if you compare a list between what liberals stand for, and
what conservatives stand for, conservatives generally are for what'll
make our society better, whereas liberals support everything that'll
tare our society apart, or IS tearing our society apart.
> Other than drug-war loving,
So, conservatives don't want a bunch of druggies lying in the streets
that the liberals will then want us to pay to help clean up in rehab.
> bible thumping
Heaven forbid we actually have morales in this country
> conscription-loving,
Heaven forbid we actually have honor and take pride in defending our
nation
> ACLU-disparaging
or have personal responsibility or work out our own problems without
the ACLU suing everyone in sight.
> conservative mongoloids
Now you're just being immature.
> they could not be farther apart.
What does this have to do with anything? We were talking about
Libertarians and Liberals.
I thought the description above was quite accurate and not
offensive to either party. I tried to describe them in their
terms. If you disagree with the above-mentioned descriptions,
perhaps you should point them out rather than flaming conservatives.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and ignorance...)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:12:04 GMT
"Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Edward Rosten wrote:
> >
> > Having read your next post, I think your ideas about libertarians are
> > different too, so forget what I said since it doesn't make sense.
> >
> > -Ed
>
> I'm almost 100% positive that libertarians in England mean the same
> thing as libertarians in America. The libertarian party is an
> international party after all.
It's the definition of Liberal that's different.
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:28:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jon Johansan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 15 Jun 2001 14:46:13 -0500
<3b2a6576$0$1816$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9gdnp2$r6v$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jon Johansan wrote:
>>
>> > Well, "DLL Hell" is no longer a valid concept or issue in Windows 2000
>or
>> > XP. Looks like that legacy has been taken up by linux - taken from the
>> > front page of Linux Weekly News (http://www.lwn.net/):
>> >
>> > "gnucash 1.6 and the dependency nightmare
>> >
>> > gnucash is perhaps the prime example of shared library dependency hell.
>> > The executable requires no less than 60 different shared libraries, all,
>> > of course, with the right version."
>> >
>> > I'm sorry but... har! har! har!
>> >
>> > "Upgrading to GNOME 1.4 addresses many of those dependencies, but not
>all
>> > of them."
>> >
>> > Sure, just upgrade
>> >
>> > "Dealing with the rest has proved tricky, even for people who are
>> > accustomed to this sort of problem. "
>>
>> Hmmmm... some end user app needs 60 libs and you talk about DLL hell....
>> What the heck.. ill program soem fancy "hello world "for Windows using 200
>> libs and break the record....
>>
>> Maybe you should know a bit more about DLL Hell.. its not about the number
>> of libraries but about the versions of the libraries installed.
>
>I never said anything about 60 libs or quantity versus versions. The Linux
>Weekly news editor did. I just posted the quotes.
>
>Hello World in W2K wouldn't take more than 60 libs.
It might take quite a few, though. This is a line
from a handy VC++ .dsp file named, as it turns out, Hello.dsp:
# ADD BASE LINK32 kernel32.lib user32.lib gdi32.lib winspool.lib \
comdlg32.lib advapi32.lib shell32.lib ole32.lib oleaut32.lib \
uuid.lib odbc32.lib odbccp32.lib kernel32.lib user32.lib \
gdi32.lib winspool.lib comdlg32.lib advapi32.lib shell32.lib \
ole32.lib oleaut32.lib uuid.lib odbc32.lib odbccp32.lib
Most of these probably aren't needed for a Hello World (comdlg32??
winspool??), but I wonder.
(Don't ask me why it's using a '#' as the first char, either.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random massive set of libraries here
EAC code #191 1d:15h:18m actually running Linux.
[ ] Check here to always trust monopolistic software.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OT: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and
ignorance...)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:14:16 GMT
"Anthony Neville" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9geli8$2621$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Chad Myers wrote:
> > > How so, or how not so?
> > >
> > > -c
> >
> > I've got a good example for "how not so"... in the State of Wash. we
> > have the initiative right to put an issue up for vote ... if we get
> > enough signatures on an initiative it goes on the next ballot. We voted
> > to rescind a lot of local taxes here and it passed. However, the
> > opposition forces, mainly composed of liberals and
> > tax happy conservatives
That's an oxymoron. I don't think I've ever seen a "tax happy conservative".
> > took it to court saying it was unconstitutional. So much
> > for "Power to the People".
There's liberals for you. All about taking power away from the people
and handing it to government. Want to buy a >1.5 gal flush toilet? Nope,
can't do that. The liberals say it's not environmentally friendly.
> I wonder why socialists are called liberals?
Usually it's the other way around.
-c
------------------------------
From: "Cyberbear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:10:32 GMT
If you, as the end user, want to turn off sound or graphics on my page, then
fine. But it is not up to some outside company to insert (or delete)
anything on a page in the process of downloading it and displaying it for
you to see.
If I write a page which is describing how to build a race car, and Microsoft
(or any other comapny) inserts links on my page to a particular company site
(say for Firestone tires), they are in effect putting an endorsement or
recommendation of a company that I may not endorse, or even like. Not only
that, but when I design a page, I will not know how the page is going to be
displayed on your computer, and which links will appear that I don't know
about. In effect, I have lost control of what is displayed on a page that I
have written.
"Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > >
> > > "Macman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > > You, as a user, have certain rights under the fair use doctrine.
> > > > Presumably, looking at the text only, or changing fonts, or similar
> > > > things would fall under fair use.
> > > >
> > > > Microsoft, as a third party, does not have the same rights. They do
have
> > > > the rights to fair use, but what they're doing would almost
certainly
> > > > not fall under that doctrine.
> > > >
> > > > Your analogy stinks.
> > >
> > > Don't I, as the user, have a right to *want* those smart tags?
> >
> > You do not have the right to change my intellectual property, unless I
> > grant you that right.
>
> Really? So what if turn off your graphics and sounds? Have I
> "changed your intellectual property"?
>
> These are all user-level options. I can do whatever I want to the
> display of *your* "intellectual property" on *my* computer, and there's
> not a damn thing you can do about it.
>
> Dan
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: OT: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and
ignorance...)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:19:33 GMT
"Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Chad Myers wrote:
> >
> > "Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>>>You think conservatives want people to become educated?
> > > > >>>>Look at their education bills. They don't want you to have a clue
about
> > the
> > > > >>>>true history of this country. Because if you did, you'd realize what
> > true
> > > > >>>>scoundrels they are. You sound as if you are their poster boy.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>You need to hit the books pal, and open your mind.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>For the first time in 8 years the USA has an education policy
> > > > >>>under the Bush Administration. Under the Clinton Administration
> > > > >>>the education policy consisted of nothing more than Slick Willie
> > > > >>>chasing school girls his daughter's age.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>Oh yeah, and removing all trace of religious freedom at the local
> > > > >>level, not to mention spreading abortion propaganda and sex
> > > > >>education which consisted of teachers encouraging students to
> > > > >>lie on top of each other.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>-c
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > Man, things sure have changed since I was in school!
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not too sure about the US education system, but could someone please
> > > > go into detail on how/why it has degraded?
> > > >
> > > > Matthew Gardiner
> > >
> > > Hmmm... IMO it's more of a cultural thing than anything else... but it's
> > > not really 'cool' for kids to be engaged by school... kids believe that
> > > getting grades and getting into college are more important than
> > > learning, so they cheat/float by.
> > >
> > > Also, kids get cynical by low teacher/child ratios. One huge problem is
> > > that parents are apathetic and would rather watch Survivor than go to
> > > PTA meetings, and they take teacher criticism of their children as
> > > insults and get defensive and work against the teacher rather than with
> > > them.
> > >
> > > My mom is a teacher so I should know.
> >
> > Here I go with my conservative rant again, but it has everything to do
> > with the parents in this country. People have no responsibility for
> > anything any more. 15 year old kids are having kids now (I just read a
> > news story about a girl with two kids and was pregnant again at 16!).
>
> That's not a conservative rant... liberals don't want the parents to be
> apathetic either.
But Liberals don't talk about personal responsibility, they talk about
how government should do more to force parents to take action. They also
attempt to defend single parent homes. The fact is, parents need to take
more action with their children. Father's shouldn't be leaving their families
and women shouldn't be purposely having children on their own. I know
that probably offends your liberal core, but it's the truth. A family is a
family and many adults seem to have children out of their own personal
greed rather than for what's best for their children (*cough*roseyo'donnel
ormadonna*cough*).
>
> > Where are the parents? They're busy trying to collect more welfare,
> > or shooting heroin or smoking crack.
>
> No, these parents are otherwise hardworking people... they're just
> apathetic. This is suburbia, not just the ghetto.
It's the whole mindset "I'll have a child at 30, keep my career,
throw the kid in perpetual daycare and only seem him 2 hours a day
and the kid will still grow up to be well adjusted!"
Parent's aren't being parents anymore. Children are like everything
else they buy. They have their Chevy Subburban, they have their
boat, they have their new house and new Lexus and oh yeah, somewhere
I have a kid that someone else is raising, but who cares about that?
When he's older, I'll just throw him in school and I won't have to
bother with them then. He'll come home on the bus, make his own
microwave meal and go to sleep and I'll never have to bother with him,
woohoo!
-c
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux
starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:19:59 GMT
"Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<attachment>
What's up with the attachments?
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:19:25 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <3b2a59bf$0$1842$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jon Johansan wrote:
>
>"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > to this sort of problem. "
>>
>> apt-get install gnucash
>>
>> Where's the problem?
>
>Obviously LWN has it all wrong as does /. according to you...
>
>but, ok, so that installs gnucash and it's very specific versions of
>libraries. But, um, what happened to your other applications that need other
>very specific versions of those same libraries?
It installs libraries from debian, which are shared with everything,
just like it always does.
If other apps need to be upgraded, apt-get takes care of them automatically.
That's why it's so popular. That's why DLL hell is a windows thing.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 16:35:57 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, pip
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 16 Jun 2001 00:48:51 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Dreg wrote:
>> apt-get install gnucash
>>
>> Idiot...
>>
>> cheers,
>>
>> dreg
>
>He may be an idiot - but he has a point. The way developers use shared
>libraries sucks big time and can cause major problems.
How are we supposed to use them?
After all, Linux is essentially a large, distributed development effort;
not everyone is going to have the same version of everything.
The only way to solve that problem is to rebuild everything from
scratch -- an idea which I for one would love to do someday on
my own personal system -- so that everything refers to the same version
of everything else, and everything is consistent. More or less.
Microsoft presumably tries to do this, to some extent. I'm not sure if
they are horribly successful -- and there are issues such as SOL.EXE which
is so old no one wants to touch it, apaprently. Crr-r-r-r-r-e-a-k! :-)
And then the third parties get into the act...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 1d:16h:43m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When you're not aggravated enough.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:20:47 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pip wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Jon Johansan wrote:
>> <snip>
>> >
>> > but, ok, so that installs gnucash and it's very specific versions of
>> > libraries. But, um, what happened to your other applications that need
>> > other very specific versions of those same libraries?
>>
>> The other versions are still there. It's called "versioning." It
>> has worked just fine for a long time how.
>
>I can feel my hard disk creaking at the seems with this wonderful new
>code/space saving device called "versioning"
It's been around for years, it's not 'new', and it saves a huge amount
of space, allows very old apps to run alongside very new ones.
>
>IT SUCKS! You may as well use static compilation and put users out of
>their misery.
You run out of disk space very quickly if you do that. That is, of
course, the windows way.
--
Mark Kent
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:24:24 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <9gfgmp$e45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:mxCW6.293856$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> Show me a setting in one of those text files you dislike so much, and I'll
>> tell you exactly what it means, and what other choices for the setting are
>> available. If I don't know I can find out in a few minutes. I defy you
>> to do the same for registry entries of my choosing.
>
>Okay, this is interesting, care to give some registry entries like that?
>Let's limit it to things that come with Windows, because applications can do
>their own.
>
>
That was precisely the point, I think. Anything can (and does) create
any kind of entry, with no documentation to indicate what it is or where
it is. With files left in /etc, you can see them, edit them.
--
Mark Kent
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:29:09 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <3b2a5976$0$94305$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chad Myers wrote:
>
>"Jon Johansan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3b2a1c7a$0$789$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Well, "DLL Hell" is no longer a valid concept or issue in Windows 2000 or
>> XP. Looks like that legacy has been taken up by linux - taken from the front
>> page of Linux Weekly News (http://www.lwn.net/):
>>
>> "gnucash 1.6 and the dependency nightmare
>>
>> gnucash is perhaps the prime example of shared library dependency hell. The
>> executable requires no less than 60 different shared libraries, all, of
>> course, with the right version."
>>
>> I'm sorry but... har! har! har!
>>
>> "Upgrading to GNOME 1.4 addresses many of those dependencies, but not all of
>> them."
>>
>> Sure, just upgrade
>>
>> "Dealing with the rest has proved tricky, even for people who are accustomed
>> to this sort of problem. "
>
>Version hell (as it should be called) is nothing new to DLLs. All shared
>library environments encounter it at some point or another. Even Java has
>this problem to some extent. Of course, it's vogue to just bash MS
>for it, because they are the root of all evil, right?
>
>-c
>
>
No, because they have no package management system which handles this,
unlike, say, debian based GNU/Linux systems which do.
--
Mark Kent
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 17:31:25 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <lzyW6.15611$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>"Zsolt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:16:44 -0500
>presented us with the wisdom:
>>
>> > "Zsolt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > I see you still don't get it...
>> > > In Linux (and Unix in general) the version number is part of the name
>and
>> > it has
>> > > always been like that - Windows just copied that in XP lagging behind
>a
>> > few
>> > > decades as usual. So, installing the required specific versions does
>_NOT_
>> > > impact other applications (that require other specific versions) at
>all!
>> > > So, _you_ in XP might be just past that, but _we_ in Unix world have
>never
>> > > been there (in DLL hell)... sorry to disappoint you!
>> >
>> > That only goes so far.
>> >
>> > When dealing with common libraries this can cause many problems.
>> >
>> > Consider an application which uses 3 libraries. liba, libb, and libc.
>The
>> > application and libb require liba version 3, but libc requires liba
>version
>> > 2. When you link the libraries together, only one version of liba will
>be
>>
>> Major logic violation... core dumped!
>
>You seem to have a bad ALU.
>
>> I'm sorry, but your example is flawed at its very base.
>> How could an aplication require liba version 3 while it requires libc
>which
>> itself requires liba version 2 - that means you can _never_ compile and
>run
>> this application on any system in the world - so your example is very nice
>> but it has a simple problem: it is impossible - never could happen....
>
>My point is that the dependancies also have dependancies, and since the
>dependancies are resolved based upon the application, if there is a
>conflict, it will only use one of the versions of the library. How exactly
>is an app supposed to know that the call to foo() in version 2 is not the
>same as the call to foo() in version 3?
This is why you have package management, where the dependencies are coded
into the .deb (or presumably .rpm).
When you install your new library, apt will also upgrade any packages
which need doing at the same time.
Mark.
------------------------------
From: "Cyberbear" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 15:42:14 GMT
Dan,
Because you, as the user, can change fonts and colors. For a third party
to stick its nose in, and do it before it is displayed in the browser is
intrusive.
"Dan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > > THAT'S NOT WHAT SMART TAGS DO!!!!!!!!!! Yes that was shouting!
> > >
> > > It's strictly local to the machine viewing the page. The page on the
> > > server IS NOT CHANGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> >
> > He never said it was.
> >
> > He said the pages are 'intercepted' and changed. Presumably by the
> > browser.
>
> If that were true, then changing the fonts and colors is also
> "intercepting and changing". Why is no one complaining about that????
>
> Dan
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More microsoft innovation
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:41:11 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Really? Then prove these links dont deface pages, and prove that m$ CANT
> > add links to their pages from competitor's pages. prove that m$ wont
> > remove the ability to turn smart tags. And, if you dont know that m$
> > plays by all the dirty tricks they can muster ,you havent been around
> > too long, or you havent been paying attention.
>
> Prove me that they did.
>
Which parts? And BTW, I didnt say they did, although they probably have.
I said -you- prove they cant. You cant prove it, because they can.
> I've a kitchen with knifes in it, can you prove me that I "CANT" take one
> and kill a couple of people.
Irrelevant.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
