From: jem@sunSITE.unc.edu (Jonathan Magid) Subject: Re: 386bsd, linux: which runs more out of the box Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1993 07:14:31 GMT
In article <BLYMN.93Mar27164320@mallee.awadi.com.au> blymn@awadi.com.au (Brett Lymn) writes:
>
>*sigh* It seems like this argument comes up all the time. For a
>start, 386bsd *can* have shared libs, the patches were posted some
>time ago. Personally I would much prefer shared libs that worked
>something like Sun's rather than a fixed jump table that forces you to
>recompile everything when you make a change to the library. If you
>are /really/ cramped for disk space, why not buy another disk?
>Considering what it would cost to buy the sort of software that
>linuxers and 386bsders are getting for "free" you can get a pretty big
>hard disk. IMHO dumping on 386bsd just because of it's size is silly.
This flamewar does not really belong here, as it is matter of personal
religion, not hard facts. The world will be a better place if people
learn to resist flame bait.
That said, I just wanted to correct your statement about Linux's shared
libraries: for some time they have supported modifiable jump tables. More
recently, they also support dynamic, run-time linking. Just as the
BSD people get annoyed when quoted 386BSD's poor ethernet performance,
because this problem has gone away, it is not surprising that Linux
people get annoyed when outdated limitations are used as evidence of Linux's
inferiority.
Linux: its a moving target. (how's that for a T-Shirt idea?!)
Followups to poster.
jem.