DLL vs Shared Library

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 30 March 2006 19:35, Derek Broughton wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > Another huge problem, and this comes about from having no real
> > package manager with dependancy tracking on Windows, is a
> > separate copy of a vb runtime with every app, just in case.
>
> And yet, I've seen _extremely_ knowledgeable Mac users giving that
> as an argument against a good package manager.  They think that
> having every application completely independent of every other app
> is better than the intertwined dependencies of Apt.
>
> Oh, the poor benighted fools...

Yea gods, what will the artsy crowd come up with next? First Picasso, 
then Liberace, now this...

Since a) innovation will occur and b) it will occur elsewhere[1], it's 
a given that libs will be updated and changed. Give me the Linux 
solution any day - it's something an engineer can understand. As for 
the wasted disk space argument - pffffft. I can code my package 
manager walk the dependency tree backwards once a month finding and 
deleting libs not in use anymore

[1] Bill Joy's second greatest contribution to Unix.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan at linuxholdings dot co dot za
+27 82, double three seven, one nine three five