On 24 Jul 2001 20:02:23 -0400, David Walluck wrote:
> Eaon wrote:
>
> > install the latest, greatest version of Evolution (all points about it being
> > beta software will be ignored - almost all open source/free software is in a
> > perpetual state of beta-ness because their authors never seem to be
> > satisfied) on 7.2 because I would have to upgrade almost every lib to get it
>
> I think these lines answer your own question. Due to the nature of open
> source, nobody ensures you get the same libraries, they ensure you get
> the best(TM). You may like the fact that you can install Office XP on
> multiple *Windows* Oses. I don't, I have never used Office in my life,
> though my Univeristy has tried to force me, and I am sure employers
> will, too, as they lack any sense of what is moral.
>
This has nothing to do with whether or not you like Office. The same
applies for any Windows-based app. I can run programs written for Win95
on WinME (and do), and I can run programs written for WinME on Win95
(not all of them, but a good cross-section. At the most I might have to
run two different installs, one to upgrade my VB runtimes (that hasn't
happened in a while, but I remember the day), and then install the
program itself.
> But as to not get off the topic, I do remember that the very first
> version of Corel WordPerfect Suite 7 did not run on NT, because
> Microsoft had not yet finalized such requirements for an app to be able
> to run on both Win95 and NT 4.0. Personally, I prefer the source over
> closed source apps. Mandrake may tie an app to a speciffic OS (I see no
> way around this), but the fact is, you have the source, you can build
> your own OS or use one of the many others out there -- not just Linux,
> but any UNIX flavor.
>
Yes, but not all end users know how to deal with dependancy problems
when their program won't compile. This is the user-friendly distro,
remember?
> That said, Microsoft makes it look easier than it really is. Have you
> never heard of "DLL Hell"? This is Microsoft's *own* term. NT is very
> different under the hood from 9x, but they have done their best to make
> it somewhat transparent, but, if you are a developer (and you sound like
> you're not), you will know how much of a b*tch it is just dealing with
> NT-specifics.
>
Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave. When did this become about what I do for
a living? And is it your common resort to tell people who question the
way things are done "If your not a developer then fuck off"? But if we
must, then I fill you in on a little secret - I'm a Java developer. All
day, every day. Do I know what dll hell is? You bet I do. Does it
often affect me? No, because I use a smarter system than that.
Besides, if Microsoft is so bad, Mr Anti-Microsoft, then how is it
they're smart enough to make it "look easier than it really is" and
Linux developers aren't?
> Now, there is certainly validity to what you are saying. The Linux
> Standards Base tries to help here, but I certainly don't envision a day
> when RedHat and Mandrake packages would be interchangable. It might be
> nice, but I just don't see how it would work. You said you disagree with
> me here, but judging from what you said above, you sound like you feel
> the same way as I do.
>
Again I ask the "when question": When did this become about
interchangability between RedHat and Mandrake. All the original message
was about was getting continued app developement for Mandrake 7.2 after
8.0 came out. We're talking about interchangability between two
versions of the same product from the same company, not between two
different distros. Stick to the plot.
> --
> Sincerely,
>
> David Walluck
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Eaon
