Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Oct 2006 15:14 UTC, submitted by Charles A Landemaine
Permalink for comment 170493
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/15/13 23:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-16
Well this acquisition still doesn't change the fact that the PBI package system is inheritedly flawed.
a) PBI programs have their own lib dirs, so if THEY produce a program which requires those libs, it will fail to link/start
b) PBI programs have each got a copy of their own lib which is a wastage of space AND RAM. Not to mention the fact that it's simply plain wrong. Shared objects (libraries) were ment to be SHARED.. as the name implies
The whole idea to fight DLL hell by not using DLLs how they were ment to be used is rather bad. I'm really not happy about the rather idiotic UNIX ABI situations in most/all unix flavors out there, but this PBI packaging doesn't fix it.
Not to mention security implications of using old libs...