forum.vdsworld.com

PGWARE · **Web Host** Joined: 29 Dec 2001 Posts: 1567

Why put the responsibility on Commercial Research?? If the developer of the software is too lazy or doesnt know how to include the runtime that's their problem to deal with. I don't see what's so difficult about placing a ~300kb file in the same directory as the exe????? I wouldn't bother using any software which requires me to search around for runtimes, makes the product look very unprofessional and sloppy.

FreezingFire · **Admin Team** Joined: 23 Jun 2002 Posts: 3508

PGWARE · **Web Host** Joined: 29 Dec 2001 Posts: 1567

Many windows hosting providers wont allow you to upload any dll, it's a danger to the system. If your looking for development and hosting exe's on a Windows server you'll definately need to get a dedicated server. Trying to use a shared server for this type of development you will find that many things are limited as they should be in a shared environment.

jules · Posted: Fri Jul 18, 2003 2:00 pm Post subject:

PGWARE · **Web Host** Joined: 29 Dec 2001 Posts: 1567

CodeScript · Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2003 4:00 am Post subject:

jules · Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2003 8:15 am Post subject:

jules · Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2003 8:19 am Post subject:

FreezingFire · **Admin Team** Joined: 23 Jun 2002 Posts: 3508

I've seen a few paid shared hosting providers that would have allowed
executables for CGI but didn't want to place the runtime into the system
directory. A Delphi executable would work fine.

I'm not complaining, we all can think what we want, I am just discussing
this topic, and bringing up ideas or issues to discuss.

Skit3000 · Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2003 12:40 pm Post subject:

Maybe this is a silly question, but isn't it possible to re-convert the runtime DLL into an EXE? Rolling Eyes

PGWARE · **Web Host** Joined: 29 Dec 2001 Posts: 1567

No it wouldnt be practical to convert the runtime back into a exe, there are some major differences in coding and some things work in a dll while others won't work as an exe. If you take a look at some of the Win Api you will find this to be the case.

I don't understand why distributing another file with your application is a problem? After all you will also need to distribute a help file with the application as well (provided your software is for the public). Sure in some cases you really need a single exe and there are ways to achieve this.

If you need to host your exe as a cgi you do not need to place the runtime into the system dll, placing it in the same directory will work. If it isn't working for you then the admin of the server isn't allowing dll's to be loaded, contact them and see what they say. I hosted a few exe's as cgi with my old host (parcom.net) and placed the runtime in the same directory. I had to ask them and they allowed it, I don't know if they still allow it though.

Many hosts fear that dll's can bring down a system alot faster if there are any coding problems within the dll. The slightest error and you can get a blue screen, whereas with most exe's usually the exe itself crashes and doesn't cause the whole server to blue screen. Sure there are circumstances where an exe can crash the whole system as well. I'm not certain on this but I think on a Windows server dll's are allowed to call system functions/files but exe's typically are restricted to their own directory and anything below it; which posses a potential security risk to allow any dll without first verifying it.

If your really needing to develop for a Windows server you should get a dedicated server, otherwise if you do manage to find a shared hosting provider you'll find alot of things are restricted.

FreezingFire · **Admin Team** Joined: 23 Jun 2002 Posts: 3508

Please don't take offense and I'm not trying to start a fight, but it seems
that a lot of people are closed-minded about this. They act like "This is the
way it is, it will not change, end of discussion." As a paying customer I feel
that I am entitled to some say as to what I want to see.

Also another reason I'd like to see integrated executables is because right
now there is no way to just distribute a single executable to a user. A lot
of people actually have problems when they try to do something like burn
an executable that has been packed with other files to a CD, then they get
all sorts of problems.

It's not really necessary to counter everything I said in this post also. I
just wanted to throw in my two cents. Smile

Garrett · Posted: Sat Jul 19, 2003 11:00 pm Post subject:

Hmmm, this might come across as sounding like a smart ass, but it's not
intended that way.

When I want to distribute a *single* file, I use a little something called
a *ZIP* file. Name me someone on the internet who doesn't know about
zip files or how to unzip them? Even newbie netizens learn about zip files
on their first few adventures downloading files.

I understand your plea for integrated runtime, as I would love to see this
also, but for me, it's just a luxury, as I would most likely zip the single
exe file into a zip anyway to make it smaller for distribution. But honestly,
I'd only prefer it as an option.

My stance on this is that I really do like having the runtime seperate. For
me, this makes it easier to udpate my programs with anyone who's using
my programs. This allows them to merely download an exe file that is
but only a few kb's as opposed to download one that is 300+ kb with the
runtime integrated. This also allows a developer to offer his programs
in two download options, one with runtime for those who've never
downloaded from this developer before, and one without runtime for
those who have already downloaded programs from this developer. This
can save bandwidth for both you the developer and the user, it also
saves hd space (not sure that's really a concern these days) for the user.

Just my penny/pence worth. Smile

-Garrett

SnarlingSheep · Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2003 4:31 pm Post subject:

Tommy · Posted: Sun Jul 20, 2003 11:33 pm Post subject: