Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:28:31 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: nate@mt.sri.com (Nate Williams), jkh@time.cdrom.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Commerical applications (was: Development and validation Message-ID: <199701202128.OAA16080@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199701202047.NAA16186@phaeton.artisoft.com> References: <199701201958.MAA15627@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199701202047.NAA16186@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > 1) Linux has ELF. > > > 2) FreeBSD does not. > > > 3) ELF is desirable > > > 4) Linux is doing something right that FreeBSD isn't. > > > > Item 4 is *NOT* the inevitable result of 1, 2, and 3. You've forgotten > > that ELF was *necessary* in Linux in order for it to get beyond a > > certain stage, and it's not (yet) necessary in FreeBSD. > > ELF was *not* necessary for Linux to obtain BSD-style shared libraries; > BSD is proof of that. If you are referring to a different stage than > that, then I argue that the same is true of BSD. ELF was required because H.J. Lu *will* NOT even consider looking outside the GNU project for code. He was told for years about the BSD shlib implementation yet has never once looked at it, and still believes our shlib implementation is still the same as their old a.out shlibs. (Seriously) > > Plus, the entire move to ELF was *NOT* done with the users best interest > > in mind. > > If FreeBSD did not move to ELF because it was "protecting" the best > interests of its users, then it made an error. Why? That's a pretty strong statement you make w/out anything to back it up. > FreeBSD's first priority must be protecting FreeBSD's interests; FreeBSD's primary interest is to keep the people developing code for it happy so they'll maintain and develop code for it. The secondary interest is to encourage people to use it so that the developers can feel good that their work is useful. Neither of these reasons preclude using ELF tools. > > Right! > > > > You want to play stupid word games: > > 1) Bill Gates has a couple billion dollars > > 2) Terry does not > > 3) Having a couple billion dollars is a good thing since Terry > > wants to invest in nano-technology > > 4) Terry is doing something wrong. > > > > Terry: But, but having a billion dollars isn't as important to me as > > finding good solution to problems, rather than re-using existing > > technology. > > You are ascribing goals to me which I do not hold to be evident. Ahh, but I could go off and document your *extreme* desire for nano-technology, and your arguement that the only thing holding it back is money. Matter of fact, I could argue that you've argued for nano-technology more than for ELF. They are evident to many folks, in the same manner that 'ELF' is a good thing. They are simply more important things to you to do than get a billion dollars to spend on nano-technology that youd' rather spend your time on (ahh, but we're making excuses now, and that's not allowed in your world). Priorities don't exist in your complaints, and neither do grey areas. Live by the same rules you set for the FreeBSD project and start making a billion dollars since you believe nano-technology is a good thing. That you set priorities to other items is simply not acceptable in the black/white world that you set before the FreeBSD project, so it will not be acceptable to us either. Live by the same rules you put before others, or be branded a hypocrite. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701202128.OAA16080>