Oops, I just meant if you remembered the havok they wrought, not whether you actually remembered them or not. Didn't mean that to sound the way it did. I think

Oops, I just meant if you remembered the havok they wrought, not whether you actually remembered them or not. Didn't mean that to sound the way it did. I think the problem comes when software devs code to the actual behavior of a library's interface rather than to the stated behavior (which may not even be completely documented). I think this happens pretty frequently, and always if the library's behavior deviates in a way that breaks the program. In the context of Mac OS, I would prefer not to rely on the library makers, etc. to do the right thing in not changing interfaces, especially in the event that an earlier version didn't quite meet its spec. I'm OK with the earlier version not meeting spec, as long as the software maker accounted for that (which he did, if his software based on it is solid). Also, I think consistency of behavior is more important in unix-style single-purpose apps than with monolithic Mac OS style apps, due to the former's higher likelihood in being used as part of a script or larger program. I agree that package management is a good thing on Linux, and shared libraries probably are, but I'm not convinced that's true on Mac OS.