I get the distinct impression that you have no idea whatsoever of what I was talking about.
Let me try to explain:
In the UNIX way of doing things, efficiency is paramount. That means not having duplicates of any files on your system if it can possibly be avoided. This of course was all born out of necessity when computers had only a few megabytes of RAM and disk space and efficiency was an absolute necessity. Today people just don't care if their installer drops a huge duplicate file in the system path, most people would never notice it anyway on a 100GB drive.
So unlike in Windows where there were traditionally no means to have one file be in two place at once, UNIX has two such ways of doing such things, hard links and symbolic links.
are simply a duplicate entry in the inode (FAT) table that describes where a file is. So a file could exist in many different directories at once and yet have only a single instance exist on disk.
are essentially the same thing but can span different volumes.
As to placing files in the system folder, it's one the (un)written rules that Microsoft frequently break that no files should be placed in the system folder. In the UNIX world few reputable software authors would dream of placing a bunch of libraries in the system folders, instead you create an environment variable that tells the system where to find your libraries. In fact more and more Windows system administrators are demanding that applications should not place any DLLs in the system folders. Guess who the biggest culprit to blame here is though? That's right, Microsoft, they can't even follow their own rules. If nobody placed DLLs in the system folder then DLL hell would never have existed. UNIX sysadmins just shake their heads and laugh at the very idea.
And as to the idea of just dropping in the two RDP 5.2 executables in the system folder and expecting them to just work when called on. Well this is Windows remember and don't you forget it!
This might work on XP but I'd doubt that it will work on a Windows 2000 system. The RDP client needs to be registered in the system so that RDP files can be acted upon if clicked on and so on. Somehow I doubt that the MSTSC binary is so smart that it contains all the logic to re-register itself if it notices that it's not correctly registered...
And if the next version of the RDP software installs to a different folder than it did before, that that doesn't say much for the talents of its install package creator. In fact the very fact that the 5.2 install does not correctly update the 5.1 version that's already on disk on an XP system really shows how badly this package is written.
And here is the Dibert strip in question.
Always code as if the person who ends up maintaining your code will be a violent psychopath who knows where you live.