Re: Makeing librsvg work (bizp2.dll missing)

[Michael Torrie <torriem gmail com>]

David NeÄas wrote:
> No amount of talking about how your vastly superior approach is better
> [for you] will make these use cases disappear (and I suppose there are
> many people in a situation similar to mine).  So please stop that you
> are not constructive.

This tone is uncalled for.  David, you've made a lot of very good posts
over the years and I've come to respect what you say.  Sadly this time
you've chosen to use some unfortunately phrasing in regards to my post.
 I never said nor implied that I or my methods were superior.  Perhaps
my light-hearted way of putting things was taken by you to imply smug
superiority, but that's simply not correct, and certainly, to use your
own words, "not constructive."  But I give the benefit of the doubt and
make a few clarifications:

1. Qt is Qt and GTK+ is GTK+, not Gtk+ (more noodles for the alphabet
soup! :).

2. Bundling GTK+ with your app is not an unnecessary hardship for the
developer since one has to build against a GTK+ environment anyway that
one had to assemble.  (This is one of the main points in my post that
you assumed was merely a demonstration of superiority.)  Syncing the
app's runtime environment is relatively simple compared to development.

3. Bundling third-party libraries with an app is the way things work in
Windows.  Whether the app uses Python, Gtk, GTK+, Java, VB, or recent
MSVCRT runtimes, for example.  Maybe Windows 7 will improve things.

4. If you and other GTK+ app developer want to develop a standard among
yourselves, you may.  The end user problems you will cause in doing so
have been spelled out clearly and distinctly in this thread by others.

If the end user's experience is really your number one priority as a
developer, then I hope you can see why Tor and others are correct when
they strongly recommend against a common runtime install, and why there
will never be an official shared runtime.  But what you do is your own
business.