From: "Robert Comer" 

>   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
>
>

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