>DLL Hell is a combination of vendor indiscipline (failure to maintain
>backward compatibility in newer versions of stuff)
Well, given that intentionally poor backward compatibility has been
a marketing strategy for forcing upgrades and grabbing market share
for some decades, (e.g., Intel dissing the 286 once the 386 was
released, after they could (and did) argue that the second source
agreement with AMD was for the 286 only and did not cover the 386;
second example, the continually changing specs for MS Word do***ents,
NTFS, &c) I would suggest that calling lack of good backward compatibility
"indiscipline" is a rather narrow view of the whole process.
Coercing people to upgrade by providing intentionally incompatible or
poorly backward compatible programs, file formats, hardware &c is a
way of life for the business-geeks and marketing-droids -- for technorati
to ignore this is double-plus ungood (Orwellian reference intentional).
<tongue-in-cheek>
Of course the solution to DLL Hell is *CLEARLY* TPM -- signed drivers --
program certification and trusted sources (Mwuhahahaha). And if you buy
that
I have some waterfront property in South FLorida you may also be
interested
in. </tongue-in-cheek>
DLL Hell was inevitable for the M$ world. As Linux becomes increasingly
commercialized, it may see the same widespread problem developing.
What makes sense commercially and what makes sense technologically are
often not well aligned. Proper resolution of the oftimes conflicting
drives is highly non-trivial. And the "right" solution is often very
subjective, even in hindsight.
MHOO -- YMMV
|
