By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
424,652 Members | 1,448 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 424,652 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Out of the frying pan....into the fire...

P: n/a
With .Net, we were supposed to get rid of DLL hell (which was a myth to
begin with). However, with the release of 3 .Net frameworks (and many more
to come) and the associated service packs, aren't we back to something just
as bad?

If a client doesn't have the version of .Net that you coded the app in, you
will have to provide it (and the associated bloat that goes with it).

What have we gained with .Net?

---------------------------------------------

There is an answer (at least for my team). Recently it has become a
considerably more pricey answer, but it is still an answer to DLL hell and
..Net version hell. It's Thinstall.

I have used it for a long time, and love it. Now, the pricing model is
different ($4,000 for a single application license), but it will pay for
itself in reduced help desk calls if you are distributing software that
people must pay for - especially if you have a large customer base. (If you
are just a tinkerer in software or distribute free software, it's probably
not worth it.)

No, I don't get paid for mentioning them. (If they read this and just WANT
to pay me....I guess that'd be OK too. ; ) ) But, you can get 5% off for
mentioning my email address as a promotion code. It's jim UNDERSCORE
UNDERSCORE hubbard @ h0tm@1l d0t com .

Jonathan Clark and his team are always available to help with any
issues.....now if he could just do something about the price so that smaller
developers could afford to play with it......

Jim Hubbard
Jul 21 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
5 Replies


P: n/a

"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:kM********************@giganews.com...
With .Net, we were supposed to get rid of DLL hell (which was a myth to
begin with). However, with the release of 3 .Net frameworks (and many more to come) and the associated service packs, aren't we back to something just as bad?

If a client doesn't have the version of .Net that you coded the app in, you will have to provide it (and the associated bloat that goes with it).

What have we gained with .Net?

---------------------------------------------

There is an answer (at least for my team). Recently it has become a
considerably more pricey answer, but it is still an answer to DLL hell and
.Net version hell. It's Thinstall.

I have used it for a long time, and love it. Now, the pricing model is
different ($4,000 for a single application license), but it will pay for
itself in reduced help desk calls if you are distributing software that
people must pay for - especially if you have a large customer base. (If you are just a tinkerer in software or distribute free software, it's probably
not worth it.)

No, I don't get paid for mentioning them. (If they read this and just WANT to pay me....I guess that'd be OK too. ; ) ) But, you can get 5% off for
mentioning my email address as a promotion code. It's jim UNDERSCORE
UNDERSCORE hubbard @ h0tm@1l d0t com .

Jonathan Clark and his team are always available to help with any
issues.....now if he could just do something about the price so that smaller developers could afford to play with it......

Jim Hubbard


Maybe. I have noticed that many wish to mkae code that works with either the
1.0 version or 1.1. If this is possible, then we have a DllHell 2.0
scenario, right?

/Fredrik
Jul 21 '05 #2

P: n/a
Maybe. I have noticed that many wish to mkae code that works with either
the
1.0 version or 1.1. If this is possible, then we have a DllHell 2.0
scenario, right?

/Fredrik


Microsoft has been pretty good at bringing code forward in .Net with only a
recompile. Not perfect....but pretty good.

Problem is....do you really want to recompile all of your code and
redistribute it every time there is a substantial shift in .Net? I know I
don't.

Jim Hubbard
Jul 21 '05 #3

P: n/a
How so? I've done this a bunch and don't really find it much of a problem
at all.

--
W.G. Ryan MVP (Windows Embedded)

TiBA Solutions
www.tibasolutions.com | www.devbuzz.com | www.knowdotnet.com
"Fredrik Wahlgren" <fr****************@mailbox.swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:e4**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...

"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:kM********************@giganews.com...
With .Net, we were supposed to get rid of DLL hell (which was a myth to
begin with). However, with the release of 3 .Net frameworks (and many more
to come) and the associated service packs, aren't we back to something

just
as bad?

If a client doesn't have the version of .Net that you coded the app in,

you
will have to provide it (and the associated bloat that goes with it).

What have we gained with .Net?

---------------------------------------------

There is an answer (at least for my team). Recently it has become a
considerably more pricey answer, but it is still an answer to DLL hell and .Net version hell. It's Thinstall.

I have used it for a long time, and love it. Now, the pricing model is
different ($4,000 for a single application license), but it will pay for
itself in reduced help desk calls if you are distributing software that
people must pay for - especially if you have a large customer base. (If

you
are just a tinkerer in software or distribute free software, it's probably not worth it.)

No, I don't get paid for mentioning them. (If they read this and just

WANT
to pay me....I guess that'd be OK too. ; ) ) But, you can get 5% off for mentioning my email address as a promotion code. It's jim UNDERSCORE
UNDERSCORE hubbard @ h0tm@1l d0t com .

Jonathan Clark and his team are always available to help with any
issues.....now if he could just do something about the price so that

smaller
developers could afford to play with it......

Jim Hubbard


Maybe. I have noticed that many wish to mkae code that works with either

the 1.0 version or 1.1. If this is possible, then we have a DllHell 2.0
scenario, right?

/Fredrik

Jul 21 '05 #4

P: n/a

"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:07********************@giganews.com...
Maybe. I have noticed that many wish to mkae code that works with either
the
1.0 version or 1.1. If this is possible, then we have a DllHell 2.0
scenario, right?

/Fredrik
Microsoft has been pretty good at bringing code forward in .Net with only

a recompile. Not perfect....but pretty good.

Problem is....do you really want to recompile all of your code and
redistribute it every time there is a substantial shift in .Net? I know I
don't.

Jim Hubbard


Neither would I. It's like having to recompile whenever there's a new
version of Windows.

/Fredrik
Jul 21 '05 #5

P: n/a
"Jim Hubbard" <re***@groups.please> wrote in message
news:kM********************@giganews.com...
With .Net, we were supposed to get rid of DLL hell (which was a myth to
begin with). However, with the release of 3 .Net frameworks (and many
more to come) and the associated service packs, aren't we back to
something just as bad?

If a client doesn't have the version of .Net that you coded the app in,
you will have to provide it (and the associated bloat that goes with it).


No. Why do you think that? Just code it to the minimum version you want to
support.

John Saunders
Jul 21 '05 #6

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.