On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 11:08:30PM +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote: > Paul Brook wrote: > > >In my experience most windows applications work because they're either > >statically linked, or ship with a copy of every single library they need. > > > > > Well, sorry for contributing to the flame, but I have the very *same* > feeling. The only reason why I'm publically stating this is that it > makes me very nervous when people expect so much from *nix dynamic > libraries. They are right in so doing, but please let's not make > comparisons, ok? ;)
These kinds of problems can be solved, but they are beyond the scope of this list. It's always been my experience that on any Unix-like system it usually works to build on an older platform to run on a newer one, but not vice versa. And it's not so different on Windows; there are a wide variety of flavors (98, 2000, NT, ME, XP) in use, and "DLL hell" is a Windows term, not a Unix/BSD/GNU/Linux term, for a reason.
