From: "Robert Comer" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_034C_01C2A6D2.5436DDA0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

>   You didn't answer the question regarding the feature or property =
that should not exist.=20

I answered it.

>Your answer is "programers shouldn't do that".

Microsoft could enforce such a policy, or at least make it harder for = the
programmer to mess up.

>   Regarding the above, Windows 2000 and later support system file =
protection that protects system files.=20

Yet DLL hell still happens.

>A great feature but it doesn't keep programmer's from making mistakes.  =
Nothing would prevent you from overwriting one DLL you wrote with = another
version that is not 100% compatible and breaks applications = third parties
wrote that use your stuff.<

I don't see why not.

>   I think the flaw in your thinking is that in while you recognize =
shared libraries are shared you fail to recognize that any change can =
introduce compatibility problems regardless of the author. <

I understand that.  However shared dll's should be part of the OS and =
where the OS resides.  If it's a vendor shared DLL it should only be =
updated by the vendor and each app that uses it should keep their own =
copy of it.

>Simply put, the only way to avoid this is to never share or never =
change anything that is shared.=20

If the shared part is not part of the OS that would be fine by me.  =
There's  absolutely no reason a second vendor couldn't license someone =
else's DLL and distribute it with their app -- and keep it in the apps =
directory.

>I had hoped you would acknowledge this instead of all the finger =
pointing and name calling you posted instead.=20

I called no names, unlike you.

>Your back peddling on OS/400 by claiming that while a problem its never =
been enough of a problem that you would resort to the finger pointing = and
name calling you use elsewhere is particularly humorous.

What back pedaling?  Because shared DLL's aren't a problem because we =
don't have them -- I was comparing shared DLL's to what the AS/400 does =
have and it's all in the OS or separately called executables, and I =
haven't had near the problems as in Windows and I've said that every =
time.  Now if you really want to talk about AS/400 shortcomings, I got a =
bunch, but this isn't one of them.

- Bob Comer


  "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e0101f9{at}w3.nls.net...
     You didn't answer the question regarding the feature or property =
that should not exist.  Your answer is "programers shouldn't do that".

     Regarding the above, Windows 2000 and later support system file =
protection that protects system files.  A great feature but it doesn't =
keep programmer's from making mistakes.  Nothing would prevent you from =
overwriting one DLL you wrote with another version that is not 100% =
compatible and breaks applications third parties wrote that use your =
stuff.

     I think the flaw in your thinking is that in while you recognize =
shared libraries are shared you fail to recognize that any change can =
introduce compatibility problems regardless of the author.  Simply put, =
the only way to avoid this is to never share or never change anything =
that is shared.  I had hoped you would acknowledge this instead of all =
the finger pointing and name calling you posted instead.  Your back =
peddling on OS/400 by claiming that while a problem its never been = enough
of a problem that you would resort to the finger pointing and = name
calling you use elsewhere is particularly humorous.

  Rich

    "Robert Comer"  wrote in message =
news:3e00f0cd{at}w3.nls.net...
    >   I think the more appropriate question is why you are faulting =
the OS for
    the mistakes of programmer's?

    Both are at fault.

    >Do you fault IBM for the mistakes of OS/400 programmers?

    It depends on the mistake.  The DLL hell scenario just isn't tas =
severe or
    as often a problem enough on the 400 to comlain.

    >   As a follow on, what is the feature or property of the OS that =
you
    believe is responsible and should not exist in order to prevent any
    programmers from making mistakes with shared libraries that =
introduce
    compatibility problems?  <

    Apps should never be able to update these shared libraries if they =
aren't
    the one who wrote them.  If they need updates, make their own and =
call it
    something else.

    >Please answer this for both OS/400 and Windows and any other =
systems with
    which you have familiarity that also have this problem like Linux.<

    Like I said, we don't have enough of a problem on the 400 to worry =
about it,
    and as for Linux, I don't have enough experience with it to answer.

    - Bob Comer




    "Rich"  wrote in message news:3e00e8fd{at}w3.nls.net...
       I think the more appropriate question is why you are faulting the =
OS for
    the mistakes of programmer's?  Do you fault IBM for the mistakes of =
OS/400
    programmers?

       As a follow on, what is the feature or property of the OS that =
you
    believe is responsible and should not exist in order to prevent any
    programmers from making mistakes with shared libraries that =
introduce
    compatibility problems?  Please answer this for both OS/400 and =
Windows and
    any other systems with which you have familiarity that also have =
this
    problem like Linux.

    Rich

    "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
    news:3e00a7c6{at}w3.nls.net...
    > I do?

    Sure seem to.

    >Because I see fault in others as well?

    Not even close.  You seem to be saying one shouldn't fault Microsoft =
OS's
    problems because other have the same problem.

    >It seems to me that
    > I am seeing the fault in others as well as in Windows, and finding =
their
    > faults as well.

    As am I.

    >Show where I have said Windows deserves a free ride, and
    > they are not guilty.

    "The facts are simple. Windows isn't alone with the problem. Yet =
Windows
    gets
    the blame. Windows isn't even the one responsible for the problem
    oftentimes. Yet it gets the blame."

    >What I -HAVE- said is that -OTHERS- suffer the same
    > problems and should be held up to the light as well because the =
same
    > warnings should apply.

    That's hard to do in a conversation about Windows...

    > How is that excusing Windows faults?

    How is that not?  You seem to be making excuses for Windows and you
    shouldn't be.

    - Bob Comer




    "Ronnie T. Mungo, Boy Genius"  wrote in message
    news:3e009164$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    >
    > "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
    > news:3e008d2d$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    > > > Your two above comments don't reconcile well.
    > >
    > > They do to me.
    >
    > Through the darkness blindly...
    >
    > > > There's a logic shortfall there.
    > >
    > > You seem to want to excuse Windows faults, I don't. (Nor any =
other
    > platform
    > > for that matter.)
    >
    > I do? Because I see fault in others as well? Odd logic. It seems =
to me
    that
    > I am seeing the fault in others as well as in Windows, and finding =
their
    > faults as well. Show where I have said Windows deserves a free =
ride, and
    > they are not guilty. What I -HAVE- said is that -OTHERS- suffer =
the same
    > problems and should be held up to the light as well because the =
same
    > warnings should apply.
    >
    > How is that excusing Windows faults?
    >
    > RTM, BG
    >
    >


------=_NextPart_000_034C_01C2A6D2.5436DDA0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








>  
You didn't answer the =
question=20
regarding the feature or property that should not =
exist. 
 
I answered it.
 
>Your answer is
"programers =
shouldn't do=20
that".
 
Microsoft could enforce such a policy, =
or at least=20
make it harder for the programmer to mess up.
 
>  
Regarding the above, =
Windows 2000=20
and later support system file protection that protects system=20
files. 
 
Yet DLL hell still =
happens.
 
>A great feature but it
doesn't keep =

programmer's from making mistakes.  Nothing would=20
prevent you from overwriting one DLL you wrote with another version that = is not=20
100% compatible and breaks applications third parties wrote that use = your=20
stuff.<
 
I don't see why
not.
 
>   I
think the flaw in =
your thinking=20
is that in while you recognize shared libraries are shared you fail to = recognize=20
that any change can introduce compatibility problems regardless of the=20
author. <
 
I understand that. 
However shared =
dll's=20
should be part of the OS and where the OS resides.  If it's a =
vendor shared=20
DLL it should only be updated by the vendor and each app that uses it = should=20
keep their own copy of it.
 
>Simply put, the only
way to avoid =
this is to=20
never share or never change anything that is
shared. 
 
If the shared part is not part of the =
OS that would=20
be fine by me.  There's  absolutely no reason a second
vendor = couldn't=20
license someone else's DLL and distribute it with their app -- and keep = it in=20
the apps directory.
 
>I had hoped you would
acknowledge =
this instead=20
of all the finger pointing and name calling you posted=20
instead. 
 
I called no names, unlike =
you.
 
>Your back peddling on
OS/400 by =
claiming that=20
while a problem its never been enough of a problem that you would resort = to the=20
finger pointing and name calling you use elsewhere is particularly=20
humorous.
 
What back pedaling?  Because =
shared DLL's=20
aren't a problem because we don't have them -- I was comparing shared = DLL's to=20
what the AS/400 does have and it's all in the OS or separately called=20
executables, and I haven't had near the problems as in Windows and I've =
said=20
that every time.  Now if you really want to talk about AS/400 =
shortcomings,=20
I got a bunch, but this isn't one of them.
 
- Bob Comer
 
 

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:3e0101f9{at}w3.nls.net...
     You
didn't answer the =
question=20
  regarding the feature or property that should not exist.  Your =
answer is=20
  "programers shouldn't do that".
   
    
Regarding the above, =
Windows 2000=20
  and later support system file protection that protects system =
files.  A=20
  great feature but it doesn't keep programmer's from making =
mistakes. =20
  Nothing would prevent you from =
overwriting one=20
  DLL you wrote with another version that is not 100% compatible and =
breaks=20
  applications third parties wrote that use your stuff.
   
     I think
the flaw in your =
thinking is=20
  that in while you recognize shared libraries are shared you fail to =
recognize=20
  that any change can introduce compatibility problems regardless of the =

  author.  Simply put, the only way to avoid this is to never share =
or=20
  never change anything that is shared.  I had hoped you would =
acknowledge=20
  this instead of all the finger pointing and name calling you posted=20
  instead.  Your back peddling on OS/400 by claiming that while a =
problem=20
  its never been enough of a problem that you would resort to the finger =

  pointing and name calling you use elsewhere is particularly=20
  humorous.
   
  Rich
   
  
    "Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote=20
    in message news:3e00f0cd{at}w3.nls.net...&g=
t;  =20
    I think the more appropriate question is why you are faulting the OS =

    forthe mistakes of programmer's?Both are at =
fault.>Do=20
    you fault IBM for the mistakes of OS/400 programmers?It =
depends on=20
    the mistake.  The DLL hell scenario just isn't tas severe =
oras=20
    often a problem enough on the 400 to =
comlain.>   As a=20
    follow on, what is the feature or property of the OS that =
youbelieve is=20
    responsible and should not exist in order to prevent =
anyprogrammers from=20
    making mistakes with shared libraries that =
introducecompatibility=20
    problems?  <Apps should never be
able to update =
these shared=20
    libraries if they aren'tthe one who wrote them.  If they =
need=20
    updates, make their own and call itsomething =
else.>Please=20
    answer this for both OS/400 and Windows and any other systems =
withwhich=20
    you have familiarity that also have this problem like =
Linux.<Like=20
    I said, we don't have enough of a problem on the 400 to worry about=20
    it,and as for Linux, I don't have enough experience with it to=20
    answer.- Bob
Comer"Rich"
<{at}> wrote =
in=20
    message news:3e00e8fd{at}w3.nls.net...&nbs=
p; =20
    I think the more appropriate question is why you are faulting the OS =

    forthe mistakes of programmer's?  Do you fault IBM for the =
mistakes=20
    of OS/400programmers?  
As a follow on, what =
is the=20
    feature or property of the OS that youbelieve is responsible and =
should=20
    not exist in order to prevent anyprogrammers from making =
mistakes with=20
    shared libraries that introducecompatibility problems?  =
Please=20
    answer this for both OS/400 and Windows andany other systems =
with which=20
    you have familiarity that also have thisproblem like=20
    Linux.Rich"Robert
Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote=20
    in messagenews:3e00a7c6{at}w3.nls.net...>=
 I=20
    do?Sure seem to.>Because
I see fault in others as =

    well?Not even close.  You seem to be saying one =
shouldn't fault=20
    Microsoft OS'sproblems because other have the same=20
    problem.>It seems to me
that> I am seeing the =
fault in=20
    others as well as in Windows, and finding their> faults as=20
    well.As am I.>Show where
I have said Windows =
deserves a=20
    free ride, and> they are not
guilty."The facts are =
simple.=20
    Windows isn't alone with the problem. Yet Windowsgetsthe =
blame.=20
    Windows isn't even the one responsible for the =
problemoftentimes. Yet it=20
    gets the blame.">What I -HAVE- said is
that -OTHERS- =
suffer the=20
    same> problems and should be held up to the light as well =
because the=20
    same> warnings should apply.That's
hard to do in a=20
    conversation about Windows...> How is that excusing =
Windows=20
    faults?How is that not?  You seem to be
making excuses =
for=20
    Windows and youshouldn't be.- Bob=20
    Comer"Ronnie T.
Mungo, Boy Genius" <dolly{at}barkto.com>">mailto:dolly{at}barkto.com">dolly{at}barkto.com>
wrote in=20
    messagenews:3e009164$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>>=20
    "Robert Comer" <bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>">mailto:bobcomer{at}mindspring.com">bobcomer{at}mindspring.com>
= wrote=20
    in message> news:3e008d2d$1{at}w3.nls.net...=
>=20
    > > Your two above comments don't reconcile
well.> =
>>=20
    > They do to me.>> Through the
darkness=20
    blindly...>> > >
There's a logic shortfall=20
    there.> >> > You seem
to want to excuse Windows =
faults,=20
    I don't. (Nor any other> platform>
> for that=20
    matter.)>> I do? Because I see fault
in others as =
well? Odd=20
    logic. It seems to methat> I am seeing the fault in =
others as=20
    well as in Windows, and finding their> faults as well. Show =
where I=20
    have said Windows deserves a free ride, and> they are not =
guilty.=20
    What I -HAVE- said is that -OTHERS- suffer the same> problems =
and=20
    should be held up to the light as well because the same> =
warnings=20
    should apply.>> How is that excusing Windows=20
    faults?>> RTM,=20
BG>>

------=_NextPart_000_034C_01C2A6D2.5436DDA0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4