Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
MS vs. Linux (a debate pulled from another thread)
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16108
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Tue Jul 23, 2002 8:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, does that mean there are still .dll conflicts?
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steblublu
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 49
Location: montreal, canada

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2002 7:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It means that under Win XP (and soon to come .Net) that dll hell is now over.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16108
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2002 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steblublu wrote:
It means that under Win XP (and soon to come .Net) that dll hell is now over.
Hrm... that doesn't seem to be the case according to klieber or delta407. I was curious if either of them changed their view at all. The last discussion you had with delta407 was beyond me, so I couldn't tell for certain which way it went.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steblublu
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 49
Location: montreal, canada

PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kanuslupus wrote:
Hrm... that doesn't seem to be the case according to klieber or delta407. I was curious if either of them changed their view at all. The last discussion you had with delta407 was beyond me, so I couldn't tell for certain which way it went.


I would guess that both Kleiber and Delta do not do much windows programming, as the both seemed unaware of the "side-by-side" dll resolution, and manifests.

Most people on this board would/should be involved in linux not windows, and i would not expect otherwise. But this also means that windows functionality is not always accurately reported.

Come to think of it, i have seen most people in this and other linux forums refer to the linux kernel as a "micro-kernel" when it isnt. It's a "monolithic kernel". big difference.


cheers,

Steb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
delta407
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 2876
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steblublu wrote:
I would guess that both Kleiber and Delta do not do much windows programming, as the both seemed unaware of the "side-by-side" dll resolution, and manifests.


You would guess incorrectly. I have done -- and continue to do -- Windows programming for a number of years.

Read earlier in the thread, side-by-side DLL resolution does not work all of the time.
_________________
I don't believe in witty sigs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
delta407
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 2876
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's confusion about side-by-side loading here, and I'll attempt to clear it up. Most programs have compile-time references to DLLs that they require; in the past, when two programs have explicit references to different versions of the same file, one would break. So, long story short, XP looks at version information embedded in the executable as to what DLL it wants. Then, it loads the proper version. Great! No more DLL hell, right?

For well-designed applications, that is correct. Side-by-side loading works great. But, most of the time, it's not the well-designed applications you have to worry about. There's another method of loading DLLs that works by means of LoadLibrary(). This function takes a string (the DLL filename) and returns a handle to the DLL. So, there's no version information for the DLL loader to look at, because all it knows is that I want to load "OLDSKOOL.DLL". Again, that is all it knows.

Side-by-side DLL loading cannot function in this instance as there is simply no indication as to which version the application wants.
_________________
I don't believe in witty sigs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steblublu
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 49
Location: montreal, canada

PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

delta407 wrote:

You would guess incorrectly. I have done -- and continue to do -- Windows programming for a number of years.

Read earlier in the thread, side-by-side DLL resolution does not work all of the time.



As for "reading earlier in the thread", again, simply stating that "it doesnt always work" is not a very strong statement.
I have yet to see/hear/read of any problems side-by-side that were not due to programmer error. Do you have an example?

As for not knowing which verison the app wants, if the app doesnt not explicitly state the version in the code or maniufest, the loader takes the lowest common denominator.

Any programmer can make anything crash. Saying that side-by-side ends dll hell is in fact dependant on whether the programmer uses it.

As saying that linux is stable is dependant on whether the programmer's code is stable. it's not difficult to write a simple app that brings any os to it's knees.







steb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
delta407
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 2876
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Read the post explaining that post. ;)
_________________
I don't believe in witty sigs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
delta407
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 2876
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steblublu wrote:
As for not knowing which verison the app wants, if the app doesnt not explicitly state the version in the code or maniufest, the loader takes the lowest common denominator.


...which may very well cause a crash, correct?
_________________
I don't believe in witty sigs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steblublu
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 49
Location: montreal, canada

PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

delta407 wrote:
steblublu wrote:
As for not knowing which verison the app wants, if the app doesnt not explicitly state the version in the code or maniufest, the loader takes the lowest common denominator.


...which may very well cause a crash, correct?



not necessarily. the lowest common denominator most likely will work. but there is a chance it will not. In this case the application may crash, but the system wont.

If you expect an application developped many years ago, or like you said- a baddly written and flawed app" to run on a new os, then you might be dissapointed. (It would be interesting to see if Wordperfect, supercalc et. al. run on the XP)



Whether that os is windows or linux or solaris.

Back to windows. If you are developing an app that runs AFTER the main kernel and modules are loaded (a normal application), it would not be a problem. If you are writing a device driver, or system that uses a boot-time forced load, it could cause a problem.

As 99.99% of people do not write boot-time device drivers that require the loader, I cannot see great cause for system crashes.

If a program misbehaves within the sandbox, the kernel simply spanks it and sends it on it's way if possible.

NT ptotected mode is pretty stable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
delta407
Bodhisattva
Bodhisattva


Joined: 23 Apr 2002
Posts: 2876
Location: Chicago, IL

PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 6:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

steblublu wrote:
NT ptotected mode is pretty stable.


I know it is, I work with Windows 2000 on a very regular basis. By crash I meant application crash, not OS crash (which is hard to do intentionally but happens mysteriously anyway). Oh well.

In any case, DLL side-by-side loading is a neat technology, but it does not solve the problem of "DLL hell" in its entirety. That was my argument. It makes it less of a problem, but shared library incompatibilities still exist.

BTW, I don't know who in their right mind would use LoadLibrary in a device driver.
_________________
I don't believe in witty sigs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steblublu
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 49
Location: montreal, canada

PostPosted: Mon Jul 29, 2002 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

delta407 wrote:
.. BTW, I don't know who in their right mind would use LoadLibrary in a device driver.


I've seen it attempted a few times from newsgroup people. I imagine that things crashed spectacularly before they got a clue :)


anyways, good discussion. I imagine that we are saying the same thing, just seeing it form different angles.

Shared libraries have always been a soft spot in most systems, and I was glad to see someone (MS in this case) try something.

Linux will eventually have to tackle this as more people switch and expect to be able to upgrade apps without needing to know how to create a wack of new symbolic links.

RPM's are not the solution. I believe portage is on the right track. it just needs to be a little more robust.

cheers,
steb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jester
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 03 Aug 2002
Posts: 128
Location: Nashville, Tennessee

PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2002 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kudos to both of you for being able to have an intelligent and civilized debate and not letting it turn into one of the all-too-common flamewarz that usually end up on Linux forums!

I'm proud of you guys! :D

Chris
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16108
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Tue Aug 13, 2002 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

laughing all the way, in a one horse open sleigh :twisted:


Note: Not laughing at Normie's problem, just that .dll issue still exists.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steblublu
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 49
Location: montreal, canada

PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kanuslupus wrote:
laughing all the way, in a one horse open sleigh :twisted:


Note: Not laughing at Normie's problem, just that .dll issue still exists.


Normie has a problem after he "did a checkup" (whatever he means by that).
he doesnt explain what the problem is, what the symptoms are or anything.
he offers an unqualified "i think it's dll hell problem"

so what was your point kanus?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16108
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He mentions the checkup cost him some money. I take that to mean he paid someone to do it (Possibly he meant data loss). I don't doubt .dll management has improved greatly, I remain unconvinced that '.dll hell' is gone.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steblublu
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 49
Location: montreal, canada

PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kanuslupus wrote:
He mentions the checkup cost him some money. I take that to mean he paid someone to do it (Possibly he meant data loss). I don't doubt .dll management has improved greatly, I remain unconvinced that '.dll hell' is gone.


it wasn't my goal to make the blind see... just to offer the spectacles. if you havent tested it, read about the technology, or generally researched it... then you can still believe the earth is flat.
I provided you with links, and an explanation of how it works. If you didnt look into it, then it's lazy to declare that you are "unconvinced".

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 16108
Location: Colorado

PostPosted: Wed Aug 14, 2002 11:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

delta407 and klieber seem to disagree with your assertion that it is fixed. I'm sure your rose colored spectacles work quite well for you. Were I inclined waste more time, I'd contact associates at enterprises to get their experiences. Since I'm not inclined to waste more time, I'll drop the issue here.
_________________
lolgov. 'cause where we're going, you don't have civil liberties.

In Loving Memory
1787 - 2008
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
steblublu
n00b
n00b


Joined: 12 Jul 2002
Posts: 49
Location: montreal, canada

PostPosted: Thu Aug 15, 2002 3:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks for comming out and contributing to the topic kannus.

too bad the thread now seems to have turned into this MS vs linux crap that seems difficult to get away from at times.

I would have liked to see the discussion continue with how to better solve the shared library issue for linux as well.

<rose colored glasses on>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum