Quoting Benjamin Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Linux also supports the idea of having multiple versions of shared
> libraries
> installed at once, something Windows (so far) cannot do.
Woah there, Nelly.. Windows supports the same sort of shared library support
that Linux does. But instead of searching some environment variable path, or
using cached values in ld.so.cache, it simply searches the path.
The same DLL hell can be encountered under Linux with shared libraries. Case
in point, many development installs install the libs to /usr/local/lib, while
RPM distro's install them to /usr/lib. The most frequent occurence I've seen
of this is multiple copies of Gtk. ;-P
> Your average Windows user doesn't *do* system maintenance. I don't know
> why
> we should expect them to do it on Linux, either. They wait until something
> goes wrong, and then call a professional who knows what they are doing.
> Point being: Windows isn't any better then Linux, here.
I disagree. They do, but don't *KNOW* they do. They *do* add printers, and
applications. That's something that isn;t really taken into consideration.
All of those silly settings people set, from their fonts to their sounds, is
system maintence.
> get more difficult. But they do on Windows, too! Ask a Windows user to
> edit
> the Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Setup key under the
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE branch of the system registry to point to the hard drive
> copy of the installation cabinet files, and they won't have a *CLUE* what
> you're talking about.
Nope, but in newer versions, you can just point it to where the install is,
and check the box letting you use that as your new default location. They
changed it, but they didn't KNOW they did..
> Installing packages into the user's home directory is a *BAD* idea. If
> the
> user double-clicks on a package file in their GUI shell, it should fire up
> a
> GUI package management program which immediately asks them if they want to
> install it. If they answer "Yes", it should prompt them for their root
> password or invoke a privileged installer. Unprotected system binaries are
> why Windows has a virus problem. We don't want to do the same on Linux!
Ordinary desktop users have no idea of this type of concept, nor do they
*really* need it. Their CAR doesn;t ask them who they are when they want to
drive it, and neither do they expect their computer to require a different set
of keys to do one thing then the other..
> Someone suggested that the registry is a Good Thing. I *strongly*
> disagree.
> The registry is unmanageable, poorly documented, unstable, a single point
> of
> failure, unportable, a performance bottle-neck, and an attempt to impose a
> universal solution for all problems. And that is just for starters. Some
> of
> those (mainly documentation and stability) are because of a poor
> implementation, but the rest are inherent in any single, large, monolithic
> configuration system. Such systems should be avoided like the plague!
*A* registry, and *THE WIN32 REGISTRY* are two different things. I'm unsure
of *WHY* there is this sort of confusion. And a registry doesn't HAVE to be
setup as poorly as Microsofts..
---
Thomas Charron
<< Wanted: One decent sig >>
<< Preferably litle used >>
<< and stored in garage. ?>>
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
