Linux-Advocacy Digest #293, Volume #35 Sat, 16 Jun 01 08:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (drsquare)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (drsquare)
Re: Opera (drsquare)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (drsquare)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (drsquare)
Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed (Peter
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Getting used to Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Getting used to Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Getting used to Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: IBM Goes Gay ("Edward Rosten")
Re: IBM Goes Gay ("Edward Rosten")
Re: OT: Where is American pride?... (was Re: European arrogance and
ignorance...) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (pip)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (pip)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (pip)
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" (pip)
Re: The Win/userbase! (pip)
Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64? ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell" ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:06 +0100
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 16:16:44 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Zsolt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
Therefore you install both liba3 and liba2
> When you link the libraries together, only one version of liba will be
>linked in, and that will be liba version 3, because the libraries themselves
>don't have linkage information.
Why would you only link in liba3? And I thought we were talking about
dynamically linked libraries?
> libc breaks because it expects liba version
>2, and isn't compatible with version 3.
>
>The more dependancies the libraries have, the more common this problem
>becomes.
And the more mentally cripples you are, the more common this problem
is.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:07 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:15:29 +1200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Doskey can be loaded.
>>
>> How
>
>Type doskey at a command prompt.
Hmmm... I never knew it could do that. Why isn't it documented?
>> >> and command search,
>> >
>> >What do you mean?
>>
>> Searching for commands.
>
>Type Help
Bad command or file name.
>> Unless you have '.' in your path, which is by default not there as it
>> makes it easier to run rogue programs. At least try and know something
>> about what you're talking about before you come ranting and raving in
>> here.
>I'm not ranting and raving at all, I'm just saying that using bash is not
>convienient for JOe User, who had enough trouble with DOS.
I don't see how having command history, aliases, decent prompts,
startup scripts etc is LESS convenient.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Opera
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:09 +0100
On Sat, 16 Jun 2001 08:19:12 +1200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 08:08:26 +1200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >"Matthew Gardiner (BOFH)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> So Todd, what you are saying is if I wrote a piano concerto in E minor,
>> >> and I sold manuscripts of it so that people could play it at home, some
>> >> how, I am giving away my "intellectual property"? no, I am not.
>> >
>> >No, you're selling it. See the word "sold" in your sentence?
>>
>> Your point?
>
>He asked if he was giving away his IP when he's in fact selling it. Hence
>the word "sold"
No, he's selling the manuscripts, not the IP*.
* Please don't use that, it's so easy to think you're talking about IP
when scanning the post.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush.limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:20 +0100
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 15:04:39 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>Fernandinande Le Mur wrote:
>> About a year ago Scientific American had a fairly PC article about
>> AIDS in Africa and blamed rampant prostitution combined with sexual
>> practices which cause small amounts of bleeding ("dry sex", or women
>> putting sand, baboon urine and such in their vaginas before fucking -
>> no, I'm not kidding). In other words, the AIDS epidemic in Africa
>> is the result of the sexual behavior of the victims.
>
>Gawd,... now that does sound pretty kinky to me! Hope that nasty
>attitude doesn't spread over here... (smear a little cat piss or dog
>piss on herself... yuck!)
It's the sand that got me the most. How do they come up with these
things?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 01:28:12 +0100
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 20:43:31 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
(Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Macman
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There's another issue, though.
>>
>> Even if it's off by default and the user can turn it on, there's
>> still the potential for vast abuse by Microsoft -- since they are the
>> ones who set the default smart tags. To me, that's a much larger
>> issue than whether it's on or off
>
>That is the most important issue, as far as I'm concerned. Who is in
>control of these additional hyperlinks? Not the web page publishers.
Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux penetration MUCH lower than previously claimed
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:33:20 +0200
GreyCloud wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>>
>> It's always funny when I get a new e-mail account and those thousands
>> of people say DOH! simultaneously!
>>
> Hehehe... I think they are too thin skinned.
> BTW is throw "some string" a legal construct in C++?? I've tried to use
> it in g++ and it compiled ok, but cored on me.
>
That jerk A. Kookis can�t possibly create new e-mail accounts as fast as he
is vanishing in his new disguise into the killfile.
Peter
--
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons,
For thou art crunchy, and good with ketchup!
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:40:33 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete
Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> MS better start cracking the whip if they want to keep up with linux.
>> :)
>
> What for? The Linux desktop is _way_ behind Windows.
Aaah, a classic PG argument: non trolling, well thought out and plenty of
good points backed up by facts.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting used to Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:57:38 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "drsquare"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 10:39:04 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>>> um... the religous war is simple, much like the vi/emacs war.
>>>>
>>>> VI and proud of it.
>>>>
>>>> -Ed
>>>>
>>> I find I use vi or vim a lot. Vi loads up faster than xemacs. One of
>>> these days I'll buy O'reilleys little book on vi.
>>
>>Its a good book. There are loads of things I didn't know about vi, never
>>mind vim.
>
> How much is it?
IIRC �15 - �20
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting used to Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:58:51 +0100
> What is wrong with XEmacs or Emacs anyway? just curious.... seems I
> missed out on one of these holy wars. :-)
emacs is enormous and bloated.
I also learnt vi first.
google search for "the church of emacs"
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Getting used to Linux
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:59:37 +0100
In article <9gd1g3$s5t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9gcus9$jc4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <9gcn40$dna$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >
>> >> i dont like teh fact that Unrreal and Quake3 are mostly dependent on
>> >> having a Voodoo type board since it seems like those are the ones
>> >> that utilize OpenGL/Glide the most. I'd say blame there is split
>> >> between Loki and the vid card manufacturers. Loki could have made
>> >> the games less reliant on those libs but the manufactuers could have
>> >> made their boards compatible with the libs as well.
>> >
>> > You could also add Linux to the list, if it want to be used for
>> > games, it should provide an abstraction library.
>>
>> It does: OpenGL.
>>
>> Or are you referring to a more general API?
>
> Something more general, I think. How is OpenGL performance when you've a
> card/driver that doesn't support it, btw?
Same as windows: it sucks if the processor has to do all the work.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM Goes Gay
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:05:42 +0100
>>>> I wasn't accusing you of hating non caucasians. I was accusing you of
>>>> being racist for hating the English. There is a difference. There are
>>>> planty of non caucasian Englishmen.
>>>
>>> Yes, and I hate them all too. Thats why I pointed out the difference.
>
>> What have we done to make you hate us so much. not that I really care
>> about the opinion of a complete fool.
>
> Something about the inability of keeping about your own business and not
> worrying about the opinions of others, I think.
Is it my business if you hate me?
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM Goes Gay
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:06:48 +0100
>> You're a mate of Kookis and you're trying to see who can get the most
>> killfile entries. figures, really.
>
> Not really. I just hate the english, southern italians, most germans
> and a handful of swedes.
>
> Kulkis hates everyone.
No need to get nasty about your freinds, even if you are losing.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[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 13:09:11 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Thaddius Maximus"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> > "Republican government: One in which the powers of sovereignty are
>> > vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either
>> > directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whome
>> > those powers are specially delegated."
>> >
>> > "Democracy: That form of government in which the sovereign power
>> > resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens
>> > directly or indirectly through a system of representation."
>>
>> If you look at both of those carefully, the US fits under the
>> description of a representative democracy and republic. Why can't
>> something be both? Hint: it can.
>>
>> -Ed
>>
>
>
> In a "representative democracy" the people have sovereign power through
> representatives. WE DON'T HAVE THAT HERE IN THE USA!!! Seesh...
I ahev tried to explain to you what a "representative democracy" is. You
realy do not understand. Please reread some of my more recent posts on
the subject.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:24:55 +0100
Paolo Ciambotti wrote:
> "Memory is cheap."
>
> I borrowed that comment from a review of Windows XP I read on C|Net. If
> the extra memory requirements are not seen as a problem for XP, why harp
> about a few wasted megs under Linux?
I harp about any silly design. Windows is worse.
> And down the road a short piece, maybe by RedHat 7.2 or 7.3, this
> particular problem will be history.
How so ? Is there some news I've missed ? (I run 7.1 btw)
>It's the price we pay for progress;
> bleeding edge software always requires more effort and more resources than
> legacy stuff, and it doesn't matter whether it runs under Windows or Linux
> or Irix or Solaris. It's been that way since the UNIVAC arrived on the
> scene a half century ago.
What a pile. It's not "progress" it is initial bad design. It means that
*some* developers need to grow up and co-operate much better. It is not
a hack anymore it's a system that requires application stability as well
as system stability.
> But in the meantime, it can be made to work, and in harmony with what we
> already have. And that's really all that matters, isn't it?
"made to work" - you are sounding like a windows developer :) Sure you
can make things work. The reason I like Linux is that the best technical
solution is found.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:28:42 +0100
Shane Phelps wrote:
> Both points apply to *any* libraries. The real advantage of runtime linking
> (DLL or .so) is that changes are reflected (more-or-less) immediately in the
> applications which use those libraries. It can also be a fatal flaw, of course.
>
> I can see the point of judiciously used versioning, but there doesn't seem
> to be much benefit of versions beyond a major release level.Any deeper versioning
> seems to negate the main advantage of runtime linking, so you might as well
> use static libraries. Versioning makes a lot of sense with static libraries.
Yes I agree. The point is that this is where is is vital for developers
to make a good clean interface to a .so library and only bug/fix and add
things so you really do have proper backwards compatibility and no
version of any library hell. Of course my beef is that this does not
always happen and it ain't for any good technical reason.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:33:03 +0100
Richard Thrippleton wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> pip wrote:
> >Zsolt wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >Forgive me for mentioning this - BUT THE POINT OF SHARED LIBS ARE:
> >1) REDUCE CODE SPACE
> >2) REUSE CODE
> >
> >having multiple versions of a library is violating point 1. Sure it
> >works - but it also sucks as a design decision.
> It's necessary because the libs aren't backward compatible. That's
> the coder's fault, not the fault of the system architecture. If people were
> to write backwardly compatible libs, then installers would be free to
> overwrite with newer versions, and DLL hell wouldn't exist on either Windows
> or Linux.
I could not agree with you more. That's the problem I have - there is no
technical reason for this to happen sometimes (and it does). Linux
should be "better", and by "better" I mean that if app developers
provide libs they do so in a planned way. Once something appears -
chances are that it will be used - and that creates problems when six
months later they realise that they really want to change a few
interfaces or operations. The problem is exactly as you are state -
really there is no difference between the way windows does this or linux
- except that under linux we don't tend to over-write old lib's.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:37:34 +0100
Bob Hauck wrote:
[snip agreeable stuff]
> Static linking has problems too, BTW, just a different set of them.
How so ? If I link to my own static lib or link to another static lib -
at least I know it will work.
> > In other words it sucks big time and you should admit it!
>
> What solution would you propose? Note that "be a perfect programmer" is
> not a viable solution.
>
>
> > I am not defending windows dll hell, just that this "solution" is crap.
>
> Shared libraries have certain inherent problems, just like everything
> else. The Unix solution at least makes it possible to use an old
> library if you have to.
I agree.
> I actually don't have that many library problems, even on Windows.
You are lucky - I have - and I can tell you that I don't want my Linux
box to go down the same route! :)
> OTOH, I don't go running around downloading the latest and greatest of
> everything either.
oops. That will be it :p
>If you want your system to be stable, you have to
> avoid gratuitously changing it.
But it's fun. Lets face it - most computer people are tinkerers - and
that is a good gauge of how a system will stand "real" users.
>This applies to all computer systems.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Win/userbase!
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 12:42:21 +0100
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> pip wrote:
> >Charlie Ebert wrote:
> >[snip]
> >
> >Hmmmm. Interesting but a few points.
> >1) Virus scanners now should use heuristics rather than just "known
> >patterns"
>
> Well that's fine. So after the virus has infected the machine,
> you will get a warning from the 'heuristics' device then?
The point is that the virus scanner will look at the exe and "guess" if
it looks like a virus and will alert you. In other words it will still
intercept the virus before it "infects" your system.
> Still, I fail to see what good this does.
The same as a simple "pattern matching" algo
> Further, you include the words 'now should use'
>
> This sort of leaves a blanket taste in my mouth with the meaning,
> it doesn't yet.
I have yet to find one that does not. That does not mean that they don't
exist.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:09:19 +0200
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> MS better start cracking the whip if they want to keep up with linux.
A> Most of windows applications would work on IA-64 without even a
recompile. They will be slow as hell, probably, but they will work.
B> All that it need, in nearly all cases, is a recompile of the application
to IA-64 to get it to work on it in reasonable speed. That application, of
course, wouldn't take advantage of what IA-64 has to offer, though. But I
don't think that many of SuSe's application does it either.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:09:54 +0200
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 21:21:39 -0700, "Linux Admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <ljyW6.15562$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> What? 1500 apps? That's it? Most Linux distro's have some 6000+. Of
> >> course most of those apps are pretty worthless, who needs 200 window
> >> managers?
> >>
> >
> >Worthless Linux apps?
>
> Eric hasn't the slightest idea whether they're worthless because he's
> never looked at the apps included in linux distros. If he had, he'd
> know that no linux distro bundles 6,000+ applications (the most I know
> is SuSE Pro, with 1500) and that linux distros only bundle a dozen or
> so of the most popular window managers.
Debian has more.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: So how many applications can Windows run on the IA-64?
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:14:51 +0200
"Linux Admin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <ljyW6.15562$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What? 1500 apps? That's it? Most Linux distro's have some 6000+. Of
> > course most of those apps are pretty worthless, who needs 200 window
> > managers?
> >
>
> Worthless Linux apps?
In this case, I've to agree to some degree.
A lot of the applications on Linux are duplicates of other applications.
Just look at KDE & GNOME, how many nearly identical application those two
have?
> Funny you seem to forget the worlds most used email
> server, Sendmail and the worlds most used webserver, Apache. MS's
> exchange on IA-64? Nope not yet. MS web server? Sorry, gotta wait!
I'm not sure about exchange, but I believe that XP64 has IIS for IA-64.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:22:05 +0200
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That is true. But one should also be able to download a program as
> binary that isn't linked to shared libraries... oh it will be much
> bigger but safer.
Say bye bye to your RAM, as well.
Try to run couple of instances of the program, everytime you do it, all the
libraries will be loaded, instead of the shared library approach, in which
only one copy is loaded.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:24:48 +0200
"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Both points apply to *any* libraries. The real advantage of runtime
linking
> (DLL or .so) is that changes are reflected (more-or-less) immediately in
the
> applications which use those libraries. It can also be a fatal flaw, of
course.
>
> I can see the point of judiciously used versioning, but there doesn't seem
> to be much benefit of versions beyond a major release level.Any deeper
versioning
> seems to negate the main advantage of runtime linking, so you might as
well
> use static libraries. Versioning makes a lot of sense with static
libraries.
No, another advantage of shared libraries is that they *save* memory.
Doing every static has sever affects on your RAM consumtion.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:26:20 +0200
"Richard Thrippleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> pip wrote:
> >Zsolt wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >Forgive me for mentioning this - BUT THE POINT OF SHARED LIBS ARE:
> >1) REDUCE CODE SPACE
> >2) REUSE CODE
> >
> >having multiple versions of a library is violating point 1. Sure it
> >works - but it also sucks as a design decision.
> It's necessary because the libs aren't backward compatible. That's
> the coder's fault, not the fault of the system architecture. If people
were
> to write backwardly compatible libs, then installers would be free to
> overwrite with newer versions, and DLL hell wouldn't exist on either
Windows
> or Linux.
That is only a dream.
Considerring that you also need to take into account bug comptability &
workarounds compatability.
You can't get backward compatability and move forward, the only way to do
that is to have multiply versions of the library.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:31:13 +0200
"Se�n � Donnchadha" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:vXwW6.1409$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > First of all, DLL Hell doesn't mean a ton of libraries; it means a ton
> > of libraries THAT INSTALL OVER EACHOTHER (like MFC40.DLL, for
> > instance).
> >
>
> The Unix scenario is exactly the same, except that it wastes disk space on
> no-longer-used minor library revisions. It doesn't matter how many
versions
> of libfoo.so.1.* are on the disk, because the libfoo.so.1 symbolic link
can
> only point at one of them.
Hmm, does Linux has something like a repharse point?
That would allow all applications to link to foo.so.1 and get the minor
version that they are expecting.
> Sure, Linux doesn't have it, so it's gotta be fascist, a kludge, etc. And
> yet when asked what to do about DLL Hell, most Windows bashers say, "It's
> simple; let the system files be modifiable only by OS service packs."
That is how it works with SFP.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux inheriting "DLL Hell"
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 13:31:33 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 19:34:48 -0400, Se�n � Donnchadha
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The Unix scenario is exactly the same, except that it wastes disk space
on
> > no-longer-used minor library revisions. It doesn't matter how many
versions
> > of libfoo.so.1.* are on the disk, because the libfoo.so.1 symbolic link
can
> > only point at one of them.
>
> That's why God made LD_LIBRARY_PATH. See, you can put libfoo.so.1 into
> the app directory and make a link to it called "libfoo.so". Then make a
> wrapper that sets LD_LIBRARY_PATH and launches the app.
>
> Yeah, it requires some effort. But at least it is possible to make it
> work even if the app developer didn't help you out.
http://www.visi.com/~barr/ldpath.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
