Linux Has DLL like concept?

[Brian Kelsay]

L. Adrian Griffis wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, jo - wrote:
> 
>>Does Linux use DLL concept, that is only one copy, of the code is in memory, 
>>is shared by multiple program?
> 
> Yes.  They are called "Shared Libraries" or "Shared Objects".  It's
> amusing to think of them as "DLL like", since the Unix world has
> had them for quite some time.

The difference would be that when I install a program and it needs a 
newer or an older version of a library the program usually won't 
uninstall the version on your computer and replace it, therby f**king 
the whole system up.  I have not had this happen even once on Linux, but 
have had it happen multiple times on Winders.  Have you ever had to 
install multiple database clients on Winders?  DB2, then Oracle 6, then 
Oracle 8, then fix what Oracle 8 jacked up, then Informix.

   I can't for the life of me figure out why they have to make this all 
so complicated.  Put the stuff you need for Y program in c:program 
filesy companyY program ver. and stay the hell out of everyone elses 
directory.  Put the dll files in c:windowslibrarieslib. name&ver. if 
you must and DON'T remove already installed libraries.  When it is time 
to run an uninstall routine, remove what you brung w/ you and leave the 
data and the library if another program registered that they are using 
it too.  That is what the bloody registry was supposed to be for.  I 
don't want to get off on a rant here (he does his best Dennis Miller 
impression), but what the H E double hockey sticks is a program doing 
putting fifty keys in the registry for?  How about you go to 
HKLMsoftwarecompanyprog&ver. and put everthing in there you need for 
saving the size of windows to draw and what have you and then ONE bloody 
key where you keep track of libraries to say I use this bloody library? 
  I've seen programs write fifty keys spewed all over the place and when 
a program can't or won't uninstall itself you're in there wiping every 
key that refers to it out of the registry to get it gone so you can 
reinstall it.  The worst are the spyware and viruses, but I understand 
why they do what they spew.  So why does Microsoft allow a program by 
virtue of being allowed to write A SINGLE key to the registry they can 
write as many keys to it as they want.  I would think you could program 
in a limit on the number of keys and that they can only be written to 
one subsection of the registry.  But I guess in their 34 million lines 
of code they couldn't figure that one out.  BAH.  rant  I'm going to 
install Red Hat again tonight just to cleanse myself.

-- 
A Computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
-as seen on IRC