I disagree, I think it's a very good thing to be able to specify my
executable's dependencies and security, and in the case of dll's &
libraries, have it present itself properly to others. I might not agree
with the syntax & method used either, but it has a very good purpose.
As is common with technology and methodology that trickles down from
coorporate, it's usually quite thoroughly thought through(phew), but it
does impose a certain level of conformity on the people subjected to it,
and while we can argue our nuts off about pros & cons, it's not going to
change the fact. The only thing you -can- do is educate yourself as best
possible, so lets all just focus on that instead, and leave our poor
nuts out of it.
Stephen Kellett wrote:
Stefan Sandberg wrote:
I agree, it's a bit complicated, but it's not a bug.. :)
Yes, its not a bug. But it is an unwanted barnacle.
Stephen
