heru, no way would i take anything that dope says seriously after some of his more recent efforts at posting, he can't even tell the difference between the "location" and "operating system of choice" boxes in his profile!
X11, i would never dream of getting M$ java so that's out, all i was saying was that SunJRE1.4 for linux is a lot bigger than SunJRE1.4 for win9x, and i thought maybe i'd missed something.
Refalm, good job i will never own a copy of windows XP then isn't it? I have a mate who keeps using windows XP despite my getting him to download mandrake 8.2, he is having a problem with ipconfig. It isn't there in XP! it works in 9x but not in XP, and the command line doesn't even tell him it's not there, so he was plugging away changing one character at a time in case he had the command string wrong until i brought the fact to his attention. Hopeless.
now, the main event:
quote:
XP User number 13 said:
Due to Linux's poor design and bloated libraries, they had to make it three times as big for it to work under Linux.
Oh yes, and where do your "facts" come from, then dumbass? did you read that on
www.WindowsXPForLosersAndDickheads.com? libraries, eh? well let's talk about .dll files for a moment shall we?
Let's say i installed a program, say it's called "Windows Editor 2.3" or something, let's say it installs this file as part of its installation: "C:/WINDOWS/WED.DLL, file last modified 13 Nov 1998". Now let's say somebody took it upon themselves to install another program on the same machine. For example it shall be called "Wedding planner 4.5", and let's just say that it wants to install "C:/WINDOWS/WED.DLL, file last modified 20 June 1999" as part of
it's installation. Now i think that you might be beginning to see what i'm getting at here, if not then bear with me, all shall become clear...
Now only an operating system made out of two empty toilet roll tubes and an elastic band would actually delete the existing library file just because another file of the same name had been put in the same directory. Reason being that now Wedding Planner is installed, Windows Editor will be totally nonfunctional because its dll file (which was older than the one that replaced it when Wedding Planner was installed) no longer exists! You don't even get an error message saying "do you want to delete this dll?" or similar because the one you are overwriting is older! Nevermind that it's for a totally different program.
Also, even if you know this is going to happen, you can't do anything about it, you cannot change the name of the original wed.dll and then recompile Windows Editor because you don't have the source code for it. Useless.
Also, if you realise "Oh no i made a big mistake, i'd better uninstall Wedding Planner" then tough nuts! the dll is already gone and no amount of uninstalling will bring it back! You can't even uninstall Windows Editor because The uninstaller will either remove the new wed.dll (thus making Wedding Planner nonfunctional) or will exit unsuccessfully due to not finding all installed components! You could of course go and delete all the files by hand, but then you would still have hundreds of incorrect registry entries... nice.
Of course this problem is brought to a head when a program overwrites a dll that is not just used for a program (i think i could live without "Wedding Planner 4.5"), but is used for the system itself. This is one of the many reasons that reinstallation is a regular part of a windows user's life.
You would imagine that with this crappy a scenario for dlls, Microsoft would have made some effort, if not to change the setup a bit, at least to try and make sure this happens as little as possible. Well you would imagine that if you had had your head down the bog for several years anyway, like XPdumbass seems to have.
Actually Microsoft seems to revel in this crap. Every time you install a Microsoft program (whatever it may be, office 2000, or pro pinball or whatever), you can be sure that it is writing over some of your dlls, in a bid to try and "upgrade" your machine without you even knowing about it. They have certainly never (to my knowledge) made an attempt to make this flaw well known among third party developers, and they have also never (to my knowledge) made any effort to build any failsafes about this issue into the system.
What sort of shitty piecemeal approach is this? firstly i don't trust them to get it right, secondly, why should the libraries need updating in this way? Just have the people go to a centralised M$ libraries database and upgrade whenever they want with whatever dlls they need, is what i would do.
Now, about linux' libraries? what were you saying? sorry i didn't hear you because all the horse shit that's coming out of your mouth got in the way...
[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
