Prev: Parse and clean odt docs: with lxml ? hints to start ?
Next: pass the name of args
From: Martin v. Loewis on 6 Jun 2010 12:07
Am 04.06.2010 14:38, schrieb Spyder42:
> I hope this is the right place to ask this, and appologise if it's
> not. I'm trying to install 2.6.5 in Win98 se final. It says "a
> required dll could not be run". Do I have to upgrade my whole OS just
> to install this, or is there a fix I can apply to 98 to make it work.

There is no fix. IIUC, it (actually) complains about some symbols
missing from kernel32.dll (perhaps in addition to some DLLs missing).

Yes, you do have to upgrade your whole OS just to install this.

Regards,
Martin
From: Jean-Michel Pichavant on 7 Jun 2010 08:15
Spyder42 wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:03:48 -0400, Terry Reedy <tjreedy(a)udel.edu>
> wrote:
>
>
>> On 6/4/2010 9:08 AM, Spyder42 wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:50:28 +0200, Christian Heimes
>>>
>>>> Python 2.6 is not supported on Windows 98 and earlier. You need at least
>>>> Windows 2000 with a recent service pack.
>>>>
>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>> So your response is either, you don't know if there is a fix, or 'No
>>> way in h377.' You couldn't figure out by my post that I already knew
>>> that?
>>>
>> Get off your high horse. Dumping on volunteer helpers is a good way to
>> drive them away.
>>
>> It was not obvious, without closely reading your original post, and even
>> then it is not clear, that you *knew* than 2.6 was not supported on
>> Win98. You could have asked 'I know 2.6+ is not officially supported in
>> win98. Does anyone know a workaround other than upgrading windows or
>> sticking with 2.5?". *That* would have been clear.
>>
>> Terry Jan Reedy
>>
>>
>
> I'm sorry, but if I asked where the nearest gas station was, I
> wouldn't expect someone to answer, "You can't get there because your
> out of gas."
>
> I had a specific question and I got a non-specific non-answer.
> If they didn't know, they should not have answered.
>
>
>> It was not obvious, without closely reading your original post...
>>
>
> So it WAS obvious to anyone who was PAYING ATTENTION?
>
I think Terry just wanted to be kind to you by not saying you're
completely wrong. Thing is, it was not obvious, enven for those who paid
attention.
> Life is not a dress rehersal. If you don't get it right, things like
> the BP's oil spill, Chernobyl, and 3 mile island happen. Perhaps I'm
> being extreme, but computer programs underly our entire civilization
> today. Computers dump stock, and Billions are lost, needlessly
> affecting everyones life. Trains crash, boats sink, and psychos like
> me go off the deep end, because no-one is paying attention.
>
> L8r
> Spyder
>
>
Funny :) You almost got a Godwin point !

JM
From: Terry Reedy on 7 Jun 2010 14:50
On 6/7/2010 8:15 AM, Jean-Michel Pichavant wrote:
> Spyder42 wrote:
>> On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 14:03:48 -0400, Terry Reedy <tjreedy(a)udel.edu>
>>> It was not obvious, without closely reading your original post...

>> So it WAS obvious to anyone who was PAYING ATTENTION?

That is not what I said, as indicated by a further line you snipped.

> I think Terry just wanted to be kind to you by not saying you're
> completely wrong.

Yes, I was trying to gently educate. To put it plainer, it is the
responsibility of question askers to make the question clear. If there
is confusion, the asker should blame himself if anyone. Askers should,
if saying anything, thank, not punish, anyone who responde with the
intention of answering or helping.

Terry Jan Reedy

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Parse and clean odt docs: with lxml ? hints to start ?
Next: pass the name of args