Re: Forcing an application to load assemblies from a specific path

If you read my original message, it was about finding a way to force an 
application to load an assembly from a specific path. I only made a passing 
remark where I mentioned that I thought that this was a breaking change. And 
I believe that the strongest thing I said in that and subsequent messages 
was that I was disappointed that side by side execution was not used to 
prevent this kind of problem.

The way you present the facts suggests my only purpose was to complain and 
throw the blame exclusively on Microsoft. Far from it. I'm very happy with 
Windows 7 and I've been using .NET since its inception. I think that they 
have done a very good job overall. You don't have to convince of that.

I can still hope that some things can be improved. You claim that this is 
not something that can be solved (by Microsoft). Well, if I were to install 
the current release of the framework, then the problem would apparently be 
solved. Is this a good idea? I don't know. There could be many reasons why 
Microsoft chose not to follow this path. However, I don't think it is 
unreasonable for me to have the expectation that side by side deployment 
could provide a solution given that this was one of the problems that .NET 
was supposed to address.

You also claim that I neglect to put the blame on the application author. 
That is not true. I believe that I made it clear, even in my first message, 
that they had dropped the ball with this one. However, I'm also very 
satisfied with VMware and its products, so I'm not going to walk away from 
them either.

Finally, you mention that this is my fault too, for upgrading to an 
unsupported OS. Perhaps. The OS may be unsupported, but considering that it 
provides .NET 3.5 SP1, which you admit should "provide a  _HUGE_ degree of 
insulation from the platform", then I think I'm allowed to expect it to 
work, and when it doesn't, to express my disappointment.

Everyone, can we drop this now? Seriously.

- Fernando

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marc Brooks" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] Forcing an application to load assemblies 
from a specific path


>> Did the application work in Vista? Yes.
>> Does the application work in Windows 7? No.
>> Can you do anything to fix it? No, other than DEVPATH hacks.
>> Is it the fault of the application? Of course.
>
> And it is NOT a solvable problem _for Microsoft_.  The only way we get
> rid of bad programs is to get rid of bad programmers. Vote with your
> feet and get away from that product.
>
>> And I think this last point is what gets everyone upset. But from the
>> perspective of an end user, does it matter?
>
> It should.  You don't sue General Motors when your car dies because
> someone at the local gas station put diesel in the gas tank.  The
> problem here is someone is DOING something wrong, and it isn't the
> framework guys.
>
>> As a user, I want the application to run, not find someone to blame.
>
> But you ARE blaming someone. You're blaming Microsoft for changing the
> framework.  Problem is, you're ignoring the two other people at fault:
>
> 1) The application author, for coding it wrong.
> 2) Yourself, for upgrading your OS to an unsupported OS _for that 
> application_.
>
>> What I expect is that .NET applications should provide a certain degree 
>> of
>>  insulation from the underlying platform,
>
> As someone who has been programming Windows applications since Windows
> 2.0, and PC applications since 1981 I can GUARANTEE that the .Net
> application provide a  _HUGE_ degree of insulation from the platform.
>
>> and when a bad application comes along, the user should
>> be able to install the version of the framework that was used
>> to compile the application and run it.
>
> I think you should just run a VM if thats what you want.  That's what
> XP mode in Win 7 is for...
>
>> That is all.
>
> That is _too much_.  I regularly joke "Intel and Microsoft, putting
> the backwards in backwards-compatible". I'm glad they're finally
> stripping away some of the legacy stuff.  It hurts performance,
> testability and managability far too much already.
>
> -- 
> Marc C. Brooks
> http://musingmarc.blogspot.com
>
> NOT sent from an iPhone
>
> ===================================
> View archives and manage your subscription(s) at 
> http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives 

===================================
View archives and manage your subscription(s) at http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives