Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch > #115827

Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z

From cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups comp.arch
Subject Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z
Date 2026-04-10 11:47 +0000
Organization PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID <10rao08$jv9$1@reader1.panix.com> (permalink)
References <20260404213401.0000593a@yahoo.com> <10r6a2l$57g$1@gal.iecc.com> <10r6faj$91t$1@reader1.panix.com> <2d2gtkpm5ihtc9jkvfm6gq1dojco8fgtaf@4ax.com>

Show all headers | View raw

In article <2d2gtkpm5ihtc9jkvfm6gq1dojco8fgtaf@4ax.com>,
George Neuner  <gneuner2@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 8 Apr 2026 20:54:43 -0000 (UTC), cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net
>(Dan Cross) wrote:
>
>>In article <10r6a2l$57g$1@gal.iecc.com>, John Levine  <johnl@taugh.com> wrote:
>>>According to Dan Cross <cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net>:
>>>>>Maybe he's thinking of what's known as DLL Hell, which resulted
>>>>>from Microsoft's neglecting to put a version number in DLL filenames. ...
>>>>
>>>>Quite possibly!  It's interesting to note that Linux has also
>>>>suffered from similar issues, exacerbated by libraries that
>>>>don't handle versioning well.  Containers were the solution.
>>>
>>>That's kind of sad.
>>>
>>>ELF library names include multi-part version numbers, with the plan being that
>>>if the API changes you bump the major number, while if it's a bug fix or
>>>otherwise compatible you just bump the minor number.  Then you symlink the name
>>>with the minor version number back to the name with just the major number so the
>>>lists of imported library names just have the major number. This seems to work
>>>OK on FreeBSD. What happens on linux?
>>
>>That works fine, as long as it's actually done.  It's when the
>>plethora of dependencies a given program uses don't play by the
>>rules that one runs into problems.
>>
>>I suppose the issue is that on Windows it cannot be avoided due
>>to a technical limitation, while on Linux, it can be, but often
>>is not.
>
>NTFS had the capability to hard link files since the beginning: the
>links were used to support dual (long and 8.3) file names. Other than
>renaming files, there was no support for it.
>
>NTFS 3.0 (Windows 2000) added symlinks. Initially there was utility
>support (linkd.exe,junction.exe) only for directory symlinks.  A
>utility for manipulating file links (mklink.exe) finally appeared in
>Vista.
>
>Windows executables (programs and libraries) have always had embedded
>version information, but the LoadLibrary_ functions did not permit
>specifying what versions were acceptible.
>[And the developer had to remember to update the build version.
>Microsoft's tool chain, by default, did not do this automatically.]
>
>It was fine to have multiple versions of a DLL in the same directory
>(modulo unique filenames), but if a program cared about what version
>it used, it had to check manually and load the DLL explicitly (rather
>than letting the system loader do it).
>
>dotNET tried to fix this - at least for shared (system) DLLs - by
>maintaining a list of them in the registry.  The dotNET loader would
>look for the right version and load it if possible.
>
>However, installers still could break it by overwriting existing files
>without checking versions. Or by not updating the registry.

It occurs to me that another problem with the Linux way of doing
things (and really, this is true of any Unix-style system, and
probably Windows as well; perhaps any system generally) is that
dependencies can be compiled in different ways, and expose
different functionality as a result, with no change in version.

Systems that desire to have one copy of a library installed in
one place suffer from the obvious problem of needing to expose
the union of functionality expected of all programs that depend
on them, either directly or indirectly.  The number of programs
that may depend on a library is obviously unbounded (up to the
physical limits of the universe, before someone jumps in with
some overly pedantic interpretation of that statement).
Computing the required functionality set is thus non-trivial,
and if programs make mutually exlusive demands of it, then
undecideable generally.  Hence, something like containers or
localized copies to isolate the transitive closure of
dependencies.

Wouldn't it be nice if software wasn't such a mess?

	- Dan C.

Back to comp.arch | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Arm to run within IBM z Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-04 21:34 +0300
  Re: Arm to run within IBM z quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-04-04 20:39 +0000
    Re: Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-04 22:08 +0000
      Re: Arm to run within IBM z quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-04-04 23:32 +0000
        Re: Arm to run within IBM z David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2026-04-04 20:12 -0500
          Re: Arm to run within IBM z George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-04-05 00:14 -0400
            Re: Arm to run within IBM z David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2026-04-05 06:12 -0500
              Re: Arm to run within IBM z George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-04-06 13:09 -0400
          Re: Arm to run within IBM z anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) - 2026-04-05 09:56 +0000
            Re: Arm to run within IBM z David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2026-04-05 06:17 -0500
          Re: Arm to run within IBM z antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-04-05 16:09 +0000
  Re: Arm to run within IBM z antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-04-05 02:35 +0000
    Re: Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-05 02:56 +0000
      Re: Arm to run within IBM z Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-04-04 21:11 -0700
        Re: Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-05 04:34 +0000
          Re: Arm to run within IBM z Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-04-04 22:04 -0700
            Re: Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-06 00:30 +0000
          Re: Arm to run within IBM z Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-05 12:51 +0300
          Re: Arm to run within IBM z scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-04-05 15:04 +0000
      Re: Arm to run within IBM z antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-04-05 16:16 +0000
        Re: Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-06 00:31 +0000
        Re: Arm to run within IBM z quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-04-06 03:57 +0000
          Re: Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-06 07:04 +0000
            Re: Arm to run within IBM z MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-04-06 16:35 +0000
              Re: Arm to run within IBM z scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-04-06 16:48 +0000
                Re: Arm to run within IBM z MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-04-06 22:32 +0000
              Re: Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-06 18:41 +0000
                Re: Arm to run within IBM z MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-04-06 22:33 +0000
                Re: Arm to run within IBM z Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-07 02:31 +0300
                Re: Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-07 14:41 +0000
              Re: Arm to run within IBM z quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-04-07 02:16 +0000
                Re: Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-07 04:55 +0000
                Re: Arm to run within IBM z Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-04-07 05:44 +0000
                Re: Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-07 07:53 +0000
                Re: Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-07 14:44 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-07 19:39 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-08 11:39 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-08 19:25 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z David Schultz <david.schultz@earthlink.net> - 2026-04-08 15:48 -0500
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-08 20:54 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-09 00:07 +0300
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-04-09 17:51 -0400
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-10 11:47 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-11 15:09 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z MitchAlsup <user5857@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-04-11 17:53 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-11 19:20 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-11 21:37 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-11 14:49 -0700
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-11 23:37 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-04-12 23:03 -0400
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-15 12:55 -0700
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-12 20:22 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-12 20:17 +0000
                Re: library confusion, Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-13 03:36 +0000
                Re: library confusion, Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-13 11:27 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-04-15 12:22 +0100
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-15 13:51 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-04-15 14:43 +0000
                Re: libraries, Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-16 01:24 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-16 00:49 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Paul Clayton <paaronclayton@gmail.com> - 2026-04-18 22:35 -0400
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-19 03:04 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2026-04-19 00:34 -0400
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-19 06:03 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Andy Valencia <vandys@vsta.org> - 2026-04-13 09:21 -0700
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-04-13 17:21 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2026-04-13 18:55 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-13 20:15 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-04-13 20:20 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2026-04-14 04:51 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-04-14 05:54 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2026-04-14 16:23 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-13 19:56 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-04-15 12:22 +0100
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-15 13:53 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-15 22:28 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2026-04-08 19:48 +0000
                Re: Windows, was Arm to run within IBM z Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> - 2026-04-09 09:49 -0400
              Re: Arm to run within IBM z John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-07 19:35 +0000
    Re: Arm to run within IBM z Stephen Fuld <sfuld@alumni.cmu.edu.invalid> - 2026-04-04 20:56 -0700
      Re: Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-05 04:36 +0000
        Re: Arm to run within IBM z Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-05 13:41 +0300
      Re: Arm to run within IBM z antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2026-04-05 17:04 +0000
        Re: Arm to run within IBM z quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-04-06 04:04 +0000
          Re: Arm to run within IBM z Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> - 2026-04-06 12:29 +0300
    Re: Arm to run within IBM z quadi <quadibloc@ca.invalid> - 2026-04-05 05:24 +0000
      Re: Arm to run within IBM z John Levine <johnl@taugh.com> - 2026-04-05 19:14 +0000
  Re: Arm to run within IBM z jgd@cix.co.uk (John Dallman) - 2026-04-05 12:43 +0100
    Re: Arm to run within IBM z scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-04-05 15:12 +0000
      Re: Arm to run within IBM z cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2026-04-06 12:21 +0000
        Re: Arm to run within IBM z scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-04-06 16:46 +0000
        Re: Arm to run within IBM z "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-09 02:27 -0700
          Re: Arm to run within IBM z scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2026-04-09 14:49 +0000
    Re: Arm to run within IBM z Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2026-04-06 00:35 +0000
  Re: Arm to run within IBM z "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-04-08 18:41 -0700

csiph-web