All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
How to make your Windows machine more stable and secure
Calum:
--- Quote ---
We seem to have some differing views about very nature of communication. You see, what I said still means the same thing from my point of view. However, different people interpret same words in different ways. Please read this text about Wiio's Laws to understand what I mean, I think it explains it pretty well.
--- End quote ---
yes, i understand this, but trying to have agreed definitions of particular words (like they do in the dictionary et cetera) is an attempt to reduce misunderstanding, and having a cavalier approach to the definitions of words does in no way help the situation.
muzzy:
I wouldn't be too hard on muzzy. After all, he is a Win-d'ohs guy with a Win-centric way of thinking. It's hard to adjust to a new paradigm when you've been dealing with an op-sys that continually blurs the distinction between an application and the OS itself. It takes a crowbar and a case of dynamite to pry Inter-nut Expl-Horror from Win-Doesn't; to ditch Mozilla/Galeon/Firefox from Linux takes an uninstall. It's no surprise that he doesn't get this.
Oh my. What about the horrors such as GLIBC integrated into the linux operating system? It's so tightly integrated that half of the world breaks if you try to remove it! And yet, it's called a library, so it's supposed to be modular? What's this then?
While I admit that it's a slightly extreme to compare the components IE uses to the C library, the point remains. It's trivial to get rid of it, however if there are things that depend on it, those things will break. This is why microsoft doesn't want to remove IE, it's a library that third party developers are depending on.
jtpenrod:
While I admit that it's a slightly extreme to compare the components IE uses to the C library, the point remains.
No, it's a whole lot of extreme, and not apropos either. Glibc is simply a shared library of functions and subroutines to take care of implementing such convenience functions as "printf" and Co., to look after the malloc arena, make system calls, etc. You can quite easily ditch it with a simple rm -f libglib*. Of course, then you would either need to write your own library to implement the same functionality or code in all low-level access and statically link it. IE is still an application, regardless of what you want to call it: "...however if there are things that depend on it, those things will break. This is why microsoft doesn't want to remove IE, it's a library that third party developers are depending on". This is something that never should have happened in the first place. It's still a piss-poor design philosophy. Aside from that, the IE "library" sux ballz, and has been responsible for most of the BSODs you get with Win (and Inter-nut Expl-Horror is the shittiest browser I have ever used). After uninstalling IE from Win-95, I went for months without seeing a BSOD.
muzzy:
Well, go ahead and remove iexplore.exe, and you'll see that the application is indeed gone.
What comes to IE on w9x platform, I've had similar experiences with it causing unstability. Doesn't happen on NT series. The BSODs are because the OS itself (the 9x-series) sucks, not because the application sucks. IE is fine.
And the IE libraries can be reimplemented as well, and applications can do low level access if they want to. However, it's quite practical to use things like InternetOpen() in win32 to do HTTP work.
MrX:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version