From: "Robert Comer" 

> >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.

To expand on that a bit since it sounded snobbish   If it's an IBM
shared library (we don't really have something like DLL's on the AS/400,
but we can call API's in the OS directly and call executables themselves.) 
Don't change the original, add it into another library that you put in your
library list and use that one.  If it's vendor specific, it goes in the
vendors library.

- Bob Comer


"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
> >
> >
>
>

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