You get lazy programmers. From what I understand, it is less work to use your custom version of a standard .dll then it is to have the modified functions in your own .dll and call them in place of the standard ones. So installing your package replaces the standard .dll with your version. It works fine untill the next program is installed that replaces the same .dll with their version, and breaks the first program.Julie Sloan wrote:
On Tuesday 01 March 2005 03:28 am, l_duvall wrote:
As someone who once upon a time did full-time tech support for Windows 95 & 98, believe me, you can do as much damage in 95/98 as an ordinary user as you can as su in Linux, but 95/98 requires a lot less effort to do so.
But I never broke windows so badly I had to reinstall it!
I've run applications that have broken windows so badly I had to
reinstall it. Just happened last week - an app trashed a bunch of dll's.
Who writes stuff like this?? What are they thinking??
Something like this could never happen in unix.
-larry
The same thing could be done in Linux, but with most package managment systems, it is more work then doing it the right way. At least rpm, urpmi, and aptget will all yell if you try to replace a library with your own version...
Mikkel
____________________________________________________ Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com ____________________________________________________
