Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!emory!dragon!rokkaku!kml Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Subject: Re: SHARED LIBRARIES - THE END Message-ID: <C7nvDE.43y@rokkaku.atl.ga.us> From: kml@rokkaku.atl.ga.us (Kevin Lahey) Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 01:12:48 GMT References: <1993May23.003623.24102@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1tr05o$qaa@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> <1993May24.225014.23425@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Organization: Geeks-R-Us Lines: 27 I can't believe people are flaming Pete Chown over this updated version of the shared library code. Six months ago there were many authoritative statements that this was not the right solution, that the 386BSD community was going to do shared libraries the "right" way, and that it was silly to go for the short term solution. Here we are, six months later, and it seems that the only solution around is an update of the one we had six months ago. Should we just wait another six months, with the same sort of progress, or should we just go ahead and be happy that we have *some* sort of shared library that we can use now? Unless we can see some working code that is much better than Pete's solution, it seems to me that we oughta just go for it. I hate to sound strident about this, but it sorta galls that we had all this big talk so long ago, and seemingly no or little progress towards the ultimate "shared libraries done right" that was so confidently predicted. Why wait again? 386BSD is great, and I sure appreciate all the effort everybody has put into it. I just think that this shared library argument is sorta silly. Why throw out a reasonable, if sub-optimal, implementation of something we need? If the Linux folks can upgrade their shared libraries, why can't we? Kevin kml@rokkaku.atl.ga.us