Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux.help:8880 comp.os.386bsd.questions:6882 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!prism!gt8134b From: gt8134b@prism.gatech.EDU (Robert Sanders) Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.help,comp.os.386bsd.questions Subject: Re: SUMMARY: FreeBSD vs. Linux Message-ID: <123591@hydra.gatech.EDU> Date: 15 Nov 93 18:34:04 GMT References: <2brq1b$a8j@news.ysu.edu> <CGC6nH.J08@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> <2btv9t$4nb@news.cs.tulane.edu> <2bui0j$blb@fw.novatel.ca> <CGCroz.B6r@kithrup.com> Followup-To: comp.os.linux.help Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology Lines: 26 In <CGCroz.B6r@kithrup.com> sef@kithrup.com (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >>Run real shared libraries. >Dynamicly-linked shared libraries were announced for testing for linux >before they were announced for *bsd. If I remember correctly, from looking >at it, it was also less of a hack, and used ELF instead of a.out. (Even >COFF would be better than a.out for shared libraries, sheesh.) All true; however, the original poster did not mention "dynamically linked." Linux has had "real" shared libraries since I started using it long ago. And if the *BSD shared library scheme is similar to SunOS's, I'm only partially impressed. Despite all the *BSD ranting against, Linux shared libraries do everything you'd want them to *except* move around in the address space. They'll definitely be faster than *BSD's PIC scheme, and probably create fewer dirty pages to boot. On the other hand, to appease the *BSD "do it right or not at all" fanatics, Eric Youngdale is very close to having ELF shared libraries for Linux. -- _g, '96 --->>>>>>>>>> gt8134b@prism.gatech.edu <<<<<<<<<--- CompSci ,g_ W@@@W__ |-\ ^ | disclaimer: <---> "Bow before ZOD!" __W@@@W W@@@@**~~~' ro|-<ert s/_\ nders | who am I??? ^ from Superman '~~~**@@@@W `*MV' hi,ocie! |-/ad! / \ss!! | ooga ooga!! | II (cool)! `VW*'