Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!newsserver.jvnc.net!gmd.de!mururoa!veit
From: veit@mururoa.gmd.de (Holger Veit)
Subject: Re: SHARED LIBRARIES - THE END
Message-ID: <1993May27.165105.7652@gmd.de>
Sender: veit@mururoa (Holger Veit)
Nntp-Posting-Host: mururoa
Organization: GMD, Sankt Augustin, Germany
References: <1993May23.003623.24102@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1tr05o$qaa@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> <1993May24.225014.23425@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <C7nvDE.43y@rokkaku.atl.ga.us>
Date: Thu, 27 May 1993 16:51:05 GMT
Lines: 48
In article <C7nvDE.43y@rokkaku.atl.ga.us>, kml@rokkaku.atl.ga.us (Kevin Lahey) writes:
|> 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.
This is something which makes me sad as well. There was the assumption that
0.2 would come out with shared libraries done *right*, and then there was
quietness for a long time and 0.2 was delayed and delayed. Since nobody
knew exactly about the ongoing things behind the curtains, the hope was that
0.2 would solve this problem. Now it turns out that 0.2 would solve many
problems, but not this particular one, and now suddenly there is a
short term solution coming up that defeats the former requirement of
doing something right. It is a typical problem of insufficient
flow of information, because if there had been a clear statement
of Bill that let's say five experienced people are needed for this task
(followed up by some message: Ok we now have a complete team, please wait)
such a unsatisfying situation could have been avoided.
A clear statement about the developments going on would help much. Public
lists of people dealing with one or another problem like the lists on
ref.tfs.com were an improvement, because everybody could confirm that
some difficulty is being handled. Which solution is then proposed
is quite secondary in the sense that the groups try to do their best, and
everybody has the right to join. Everyone thinking that someone programs
shared libraries (which wasn't really done) and not having a hint whom to
ask in case, is certainly not a useful principle of work.
Hope this will become better in the future.
Holger
--
Dr. Holger Veit | INTERNET: Holger.Veit@gmd.de
| | / GMD-SET German National Research | Phone: (+49) 2241 14 2448
|__| / Center for Computer Science | Fax: (+49) 2241 14 2342
| | / P.O. Box 13 16 | Three lines Signature space
| |/ Schloss Birlinghoven | available for rent. Nearly
DW-5205 St. Augustin, Germany | unused, good conditions