I agree 100%. I was simply trying to point out that auto-updating dependencies would create the problems that Window$ has. To solve a real problem (incompatible DLLs), Microsoft has opted to go the hardware route -- hard drives are cheap. Unfortunately, it still doesn't solve the problem, and unless you use all Windows XP apps you still will be faced with the problem (but that's probably part of M$ marketing campaing). Apple OS X and Linux/Unix have approached this problem from a different angle and is much preferred. While having to deal with dependencies can be frustrating, at times, installing a new app doesn't break existing ones (well, unless you use --force :)). Joe On Tuesday 18 September 2001 11:55 pm, you wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 18:21:10 -0500, Joseph Braddock > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > I know dependencies are a pain, but so is Windows when some program being > > install takes it upon itself to update various DLLs that a new app needs, > > but breaks existing apps in the process. It's such a problem that > > evidently XP has given up on the shared DLLs and each app will now have > > them in their own > > > folder. > > This is a VERY BAD idea. All it does is lead to resource (drive space, > memory, CPU usage, etc.) wastage. Why is The GIMP only about 20MB when > inatalled, while Adobe Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro can take up hundreds of > megs? Because The GIMP relies on what's already there. The developers don't > have to bother with reinventing the wheel; they can use shared libraries > like libjpeg and libpng to do simple things like displaying images, giving > coders more time to improve their own app. If you upgrade your libjpeg > (which can display JPEGs) and libpng (which can display PNGs), you will be > upgrading _all_ the applications that use those libs, including Mozilla and > Konqueror.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
