[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Vista bug
- From: Stephen Kellett <lua@...>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:30:08 +0000
The barnacle I was referring to was the awkwardness of the whole
process, not the fact that it is security concious. Deployment should be
easy not indeciperably hard. Regardless of which, documentation on said
subject and error messages related thereto should also be explicit and
clear. As I've already indicated, I have not found that to be the case.
Given that linking with the dynamic CRT libraries has always worked in
the past, to switch to a new system that uses an identical method but
which breaks completely absent the specific version of the dynamic CRT
library (even with the same name) is dire. The fact it is so dire and
that so many competent software engineers are confused by this
"deployment issue" is testament to how horrible the whole thing is.
They should at least give you the option:
Version X.YZ of the Microsoft dyanmic CRT 8.0 is required. "
Version X.YZ is not present but a compatible version W.YZ is available.
Would you like to use it? They may be security issues with this choice.
For *most* people they'd be able to continue working OK, if slightly
interrupted. I'm sure some people would think the above option is vomit
inducing. I'm thinking of it as the desktop equivalent of the Internet
Explorer Active X warning. I'm not delighted by the above suggested
option either but it keeps people working. THey could have added an
option to the manifest that specifically would allow/deny such an option
depending on how important the DLL was (in the case of the MS CRT, which
is pretty much unchanging from release to release it would be "allow").
Anyway its moot, they've done it and people have to live with it (I felt
the same way about the awful Visual Studio 7.0 that was such a gigantic
leap backwards in usability compared to VS 6.0).
Stefan Sandberg wrote:
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.