> On Thu, 1 Feb 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>> By default the linker generates executables that link to DLL's such as >>> libc. etc. etc. >>> >> >> But don't windows programs, even sol.exe, require dll's too? > > > Certainly a few bouts of DLL Hell will convince you that they do exist > in Windows, and if anything considerably more problematic. > > Why more problematic? I'm not sure, but my empirical observation is > that they are.
I think because some thoughtless programs install their own local copy of certain dll's. I searched recently for a certain popular windows dll on my desktop and there were about 8 copies, scattered around everywhere from c:\winnt to c:\program files\*\ - a veritable mess. How you keep version control in such a setup is beyond me. > > Personally I blame lack of openness. In the linuxy world the tools to > view and manipulate these things from the lowest to the highest level > are all installed standard on every system. Occasionally you see proprietary programs that include their own version of libraries, but generally there is no need for that in open source programs.
