You do realise that the SxS cache is primarily used for system libraries like the C runtime, MFC and ATL?
Yes, which is at the root of my point -- I expect system libraries to be properly designed and not require this sort of a logic layer just to get the system to work. Thus, the logic layer is a hack.
It seems like a hack to me because it's overengineering a solution to problem that seems to be caused by poor design choices. The more elegant solution is to make good design choices. Admittedly, Linux's solution is of the same vein, but at least it's not overengineered, and so it doesn't actively encourage poor programming practices.
As others have pointed out, your DLL example is itself an example of suboptimal engineering. Your situation should never arise in the first place, and is an example of underlying problems. To make it work without fixing the underlying problems is a hack.
But I'm fascinated by this part:
The SxS system also has some additional security since it uses signatures for the DLLs when loading your process, so it's much harder for a hacker to replace the library you're using behind your back (by setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH for example).
Why do you think this is a good thing? In my opinion,the flexibility of being able to replace shared libraries "behind an application's back" is highly desirable, and is one of the benefits of using shared libraries.
If you app is performing a function that really needs to be as locked-down and secure as possible, then you shouldn't be using shared libraries or DLLs at all. Fortunately, there are very, very few types of apps where such concerns are valid.
In fact the SxS assembly system in windows is the only real way out of DLL hell, much better than the versioning scheme for shared libraries used in Linux.
Better than the Linux scheme + proper shared library design? How? I've done extensive work with both, and the SxS scheme seems like like a gigantic, fairly ugly hack to me (albeit not as ugly as a lot of other hacks) and Linux's scheme, while not perfect, seems much more elegant and reliable.
I'm not trolling or picking a fight, I really want to know.
If Apple let third party devices to sync back to iTunes then it would be possible for a poorly designed device to cause serious harm to your media library. Supporting such devices in a relatively safe manner is possible but it would be very expensive.
I hear this sort of argument all the time from Apple fans. The thing is, this sounds like Apple insulting their users -- in effect, calling them all dumbasses that need to be restricted in what they can do because in the end they'll blame Apple for things Apple has no fault in.
Perhaps that's true, and Apple fans are largely stupid. Or perhaps Apple fans are largely intelligent and Apple is wrong in being so condescending.
Either way, that argument tells me that Apple does not make products that are aimed at people like me -- intelligent,sophisticated users who want flexibility and freedom.
That, at the root of it, is why I don't, and won't, buy anything Apple and discourage others from doing the same.
I was very excited about the Pre. I liked the idea of having a modern palmtop to develop for and have several projects in mind that I think would do very well.
Originally, I was looking at the iPhone, but I rapidly grew to dislike the way Apple was dealing with developers, and the recent problems with the store are the final nail in that coffin for me.
I liked the Pre better than the iPhone as a phone and a computing platform, and I'm a Palm developer with warm and fuzzy feelings about the company from way back, so that seemed the obvious way to go.
But, everything Palm is doing smells like what Apple is doing, so I'm very disappointed and am squealing about it.
But my real response is exactly what you said -- I'm not going to develop for the Palm (unless they make some sort of radical and surprising course correction).
They've chosen a slightly retro, awkward and geeky theme to these adverts, and trust me, the awkwardness is intentional (Remember Bill Gates and Seinfeld?).
Slightly? I suppose, in the same sense that nitroglycerin is slightly unstable.
This campaign reminds me of movies that are intended from the outset to be good camp, but just end up plumbing the depths of horribleness without any redeeming qualities at all.
I believe it does harm the child. It conditions the child to the idea of pervasive surveillance. This not only lays the groundwork for tolerance of oppressive governments, but also lays the groundwork for growing adults who can't handle life on their own.
Slashdot Mirror
You do realise that the SxS cache is primarily used for system libraries like the C runtime, MFC and ATL?
Yes, which is at the root of my point -- I expect system libraries to be properly designed and not require this sort of a logic layer just to get the system to work. Thus, the logic layer is a hack.
It seems like a hack to me because it's overengineering a solution to problem that seems to be caused by poor design choices. The more elegant solution is to make good design choices. Admittedly, Linux's solution is of the same vein, but at least it's not overengineered, and so it doesn't actively encourage poor programming practices.
As others have pointed out, your DLL example is itself an example of suboptimal engineering. Your situation should never arise in the first place, and is an example of underlying problems. To make it work without fixing the underlying problems is a hack.
But I'm fascinated by this part:
The SxS system also has some additional security since it uses signatures for the DLLs when loading your process, so it's much harder for a hacker to replace the library you're using behind your back (by setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH for example).
Why do you think this is a good thing? In my opinion,the flexibility of being able to replace shared libraries "behind an application's back" is highly desirable, and is one of the benefits of using shared libraries.
If you app is performing a function that really needs to be as locked-down and secure as possible, then you shouldn't be using shared libraries or DLLs at all. Fortunately, there are very, very few types of apps where such concerns are valid.
In fact the SxS assembly system in windows is the only real way out of DLL hell, much better than the versioning scheme for shared libraries used in Linux.
Better than the Linux scheme + proper shared library design? How? I've done extensive work with both, and the SxS scheme seems like like a gigantic, fairly ugly hack to me (albeit not as ugly as a lot of other hacks) and Linux's scheme, while not perfect, seems much more elegant and reliable.
I'm not trolling or picking a fight, I really want to know.
If Apple let third party devices to sync back to iTunes then it would be possible for a poorly designed device to cause serious harm to your media library. Supporting such devices in a relatively safe manner is possible but it would be very expensive.
I hear this sort of argument all the time from Apple fans. The thing is, this sounds like Apple insulting their users -- in effect, calling them all dumbasses that need to be restricted in what they can do because in the end they'll blame Apple for things Apple has no fault in.
Perhaps that's true, and Apple fans are largely stupid. Or perhaps Apple fans are largely intelligent and Apple is wrong in being so condescending.
Either way, that argument tells me that Apple does not make products that are aimed at people like me -- intelligent,sophisticated users who want flexibility and freedom.
That, at the root of it, is why I don't, and won't, buy anything Apple and discourage others from doing the same.
Just disappointment, really.
I was very excited about the Pre. I liked the idea of having a modern palmtop to develop for and have several projects in mind that I think would do very well.
Originally, I was looking at the iPhone, but I rapidly grew to dislike the way Apple was dealing with developers, and the recent problems with the store are the final nail in that coffin for me.
I liked the Pre better than the iPhone as a phone and a computing platform, and I'm a Palm developer with warm and fuzzy feelings about the company from way back, so that seemed the obvious way to go.
But, everything Palm is doing smells like what Apple is doing, so I'm very disappointed and am squealing about it.
But my real response is exactly what you said -- I'm not going to develop for the Palm (unless they make some sort of radical and surprising course correction).
They've chosen a slightly retro, awkward and geeky theme to these adverts, and trust me, the awkwardness is intentional (Remember Bill Gates and Seinfeld?).
Slightly? I suppose, in the same sense that nitroglycerin is slightly unstable.
This campaign reminds me of movies that are intended from the outset to be good camp, but just end up plumbing the depths of horribleness without any redeeming qualities at all.
I believe it does harm the child. It conditions the child to the idea of pervasive surveillance. This not only lays the groundwork for tolerance of oppressive governments, but also lays the groundwork for growing adults who can't handle life on their own.