[BlueApple]

Does MacOS X have Windows-Registry equivalent?

[Kickaha]

NO! Thank fricking god.

[Brad]

I would post links to various threads that extolled the joys of Mac OS X not having a registry, but I didn't feel like searching either.

[BlueApple]

One more related question:

Does MacOS X have DLL equivalent? I know that on Linux system, there are dynamic linked library files, so I'm wondering if it's same on MacOS X?

If MacOS X does have DLL, how come people say that MacOS X doesn't have DLL hell problem?


Thanks

[Windowsrookie]

Everything you'll ever need to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X

[LudwigVan]

A post by dfiler in this thread dated 5 days ago:

It really isn't that difficult [to uninstall applications] in OS X. There isn't the whole shared dll mess like there is in Windows. Apps would only remove the files they installed. There are certainly a few outliers. But they're far from the norm.

[Brad]

Yes, Mac OS X has dynamically linked libraries called frameworks.

See here for a brief emplanation:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/2q00/...s-x-dp4-2.html

The article actually predates Mac OS X (the retail 10.0 version), but the explanation is still good.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by windowsrookie Everything you'll ever need to know. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mac_OS_X

Uh, no. That page mentions nothing of the Windows registry, Windows DLLs, or Mac OS X frameworks. That article is the very definition of "bare bones" and completely misses some important technical aspects of Mac OS X.

[Windowsrookie]

Well it should. You a Wikipedia member?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by windowsrookie Well it should.

Should ≠ does. Please try to read and find some relevance in pages before posting links to them.

[Windowsrookie]

Sorry, just figured the "Mac OS X" page would have everything about Mac OS X.

[chucker]

Mac OS X has dynamic libraries, yes. Virtually any OS has.

The "DLL hell" problem in Windows isn't the existence of DLLs; it's the historical incompetence of third-party developers at resolving DLL conflicts. In the past years, this has gotten a lot better, but you'll still find a lot of bad software that misbehaves and thusly causes problems.

The way this happens is usually as follows: software A is dynamically linked to a common library — let's say Winsock2.dll; that's the basic network socket library as of Windows 98 and newer. Let's say the software gets released in 2006, where most people have Windows XP. Many have service pack 2, but hardly all of them, and even those who do don't have the exact version the software expects. Let's say XP SP 2 ships with Winsock2 version 4.0.1 (I'm totally making this up for sake of brevity), but software A expects a feature found in version 4.1.0.

Now, the vendor of software A thinks "well that's fine, we'll simply ship version 4.1.0 of the DLL and install it automatically!" Maybe the vendor is even smart enough to add "unless, of course, a newer version is installed!"

Now, user X had, indeed, the older version 4.0.1 installed, and software A installs versoin 4.1.0, replacing 4.0.1. Sounds great, no?

Well, trouble is, in 4.0.1, a feature was marked as deprecated in the API, urging developers not to use it any more, but many developers, such as the one from software B, still rely on the existence of that feature, and still expect that every single Windows machine with XP Service Pack 2 has version 4.0.1 or a version still having this deprecated feature.

So now the user runs software B and is baffled: it crashes. The user doesn't actually know why it crashes, and blames, of course, the vendor of software B, who were only partially at fault for still using an old feature, but in reality, software A is the culprit: software A shouldn't have replaced a file apps rely on, in the system folder! Software A shouldn't have touched the system folder at all!

Obviously, there's ways to solve it. The Unix way is to simply provide multiple versions and make them part of the file name. Lookie here, for instance:

libiodbc.2.1.10.dyliblibiodbc.2.1.6.dyliblibiodbc.2.dyliblibiodbc.alibiodbc.dylib

Now, the vendor of software A can easily dynamically link directly to version 2.1.10, and will get the desired feature, and the vendor of software B would link to 2.1.6, which still has the deprecated feature.

Mac OS X has, in addition, a different solution, through framework bundles, like here:

1.31.3.11.41.4.21.51.5.0ACurrentCurrentJDK

This is a "Versions" directory you can find in each framework bundle, which nicely separates all different versions.

Microsoft imply recommends, and has for many years, that vendors supply their own DLLs and keep them in their respective application directories. That has one rather negligible downside (you'll wind up having many different versions of the same DLL on your hard drive, and sometimes even the same exact version many times), but the huge upside that you'll never suffer conflicts — the system folders aren't being mucked with, as they shouldn't.

Hope that helps

[chucker]

Originally Posted by windowsrookie Sorry, just figured the "Mac OS X" page would have everything about Mac OS X.

The only thing you can assume about Wikipedia is childish banter over just how irrelevant a page is, with so-called discussions at the same language level of SomethingAwful.com, only with more pretentiousness.   

[Windowsrookie]

I've got it! Chucker=Jobs!

[sirnick4]

Originally Posted by windowsrookie I've got it! Chucker=Jobs!

Oh, and a very rich and powerful man he would be if that were true

[Windowsrookie]

No, poor man only makes $1 a year.

[sirnick4]

Originally Posted by windowsrookie No, poor man only makes $1 a year.

Yep, you got me.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by windowsrookie No, poor man only makes $1 a year.

According to a bank I wanted to switch to, I make $0, and therefore don't apply.  

[MSFT]

Originally Posted by chucker According to a bank I wanted to switch to, I make $0, and therefore don't apply.

You're close enough to Jobs, heh.

As much as the Registry causes me headaches, it sometimes can be a life-saver. There have been a few times when a client needs something that's stored in the registry. Yes, it is a pain in the ass, and is the source of too many problems, but it serves a purpose.

[dfiler]

Originally Posted by LudwigVan A post by dfiler in this thread dated 5 days ago:

A bit of clarrification:

OS X does have the equivalent of DLLs. But the architecture is different enough that it isn't really a problem.

For one thing, OS X gracefully handles multiple versions of the same framework or library. Want a new version installed with your program? No problem, other apps are still free to use the old one.

I think a lot of the problems in Windows is a result of the codebase being large and convoluted at this point. As a developer, there is simply too much to think about and deal with. There's always 50 ways to do something, most of which are somewhat depricated... maybe. You never really know for sure. This extends into the land of dll hell as well. The landscape is so messy that problems are bound to crop up.

[Banana]

*BUMP*


I searched the archives hoping to answer a question that occurred to me- as Mac OS X doesn't have a registry, how does it maintain things such as file associations and other informations about an X application's capability and what it should be used for.

The above explained the libraries well but it didn't seem that file associations and other metadata that registry usually contain to, for lack of better word, describe an application, was covered.

I see plenty of hits explaining how to change a file association but not so much about creating one, and how that information is stored.

Anyone has a clue?

TIA.

[ShadowOfGed]

Originally Posted by Banana *BUMP* I searched the archives hoping to answer a question that occurred to me- as Mac OS X doesn't have a registry, how does it maintain things such as file associations and other informations about an X application's capability and what it should be used for. The above explained the libraries well but it didn't seem that file associations and other metadata that registry usually contain to, for lack of better word, describe an application, was covered. I see plenty of hits explaining how to change a file association but not so much about creating one, and how that information is stored. Anyone has a clue? TIA.

That's the domain of LaunchServices. Every application includes data about files it can handle in its Info.plist (<app>/Contents/Info.plist), and then LaunchServices uses that (among other things) to determine which applications handle what.

[curiousuburb]

Pre-OS X the Resource fork once held this metadata (while data fork held contents) at file level, while System Extensions handled the global settings... but were capable of version conflicts themselves.

OS X deals with this nowadays via a feline animal spirit icon which hovers over each file's shoulder with file association, stats, etc.

[Banana]

Oh wait, OS X is possessed?

Oh now *THAT* makes sense! Even explains the total lack of viruses, too! What can be more evil than an OS that actually work?

[curiousuburb]

Oh wait... maybe I was thinking about the Hello KittyBook.

[tsa]

Originally Posted by chucker The only thing you can assume about Wikipedia is childish banter over just how irrelevant a page is, with so-called discussions at the same language level of SomethingAwful.com, only with more pretentiousness.

That is the worst website in terms of content that I have ever seen.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by tsa That is the worst website in terms of content that I have ever seen.

Yeah, Wikipedia is the worst.

Wait... why were we bumping this thread?

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Brad Yeah, Wikipedia is the worst.

I wouldn't say it's the worst. Its a handy "first stop" for looking up super basic information.

What I hate about Wikipedia is that it can never outright say anything, only that "some people" say it.

For example:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia (quote from a US document of law) "The US government is not founded on X." Some people think that this means that the US government is not founded on X.

Like, WTH? Sometimes things are just true. There's times when they literally rewrite the law in question, word for word, only just adding "Some people" in front of it, in a bid to be NPOV. But some points of view are factually wrong.

Wikipedia can never actually say anything. It's like the least ballsy site ever. (And people think it has a bias?)

(Granted, there are times when it's blatantly partial. How come the article for Rio's bid for the 2016 Olympics gets six pages, when every other bid gets just one? For extra WTF, click the history, and see that one user has made 95% of the hundreds of edits to that page - and he has the slogan for Rio's bid on his user page. Yup, he's just the epitome of impartiality! And yet that gets nominated as a good article.)

Part of me wants to just give up trying to fix Wikipedia, and just hope that nobody (like, IOC voters?) pays any attention to it. The humanist in me wants to love the idea but dammit it's so hard sometimes. Why can't people be less dumb

[dfiler]

Completely off topic but I can't resist...

What's with the wikipedia hate fest? Sure, it's flawed. But isn't every information source. Recently I popped open a 25 year old encyclopedia set. Some of the information was laughably wrong or biased. As with any source, we should have a healthy skepticism inline with that source's track record. Wikipedia seems on par with that encyclopedia set. Probably on par with the cable news channels as well.

What's it good for? Just now I looked up the specs for hdmi 1.4 and purposefully went to wikipedia first.

[Bryson]

It's cool to hate Wikipedia if you're an internet nerd. You should get with the programme.

What you should be using is that other website where all of the info is 100% correct and has articles on virtually everything. What's it called again? It'll come to me in a moment...