Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: SHARED LIBRARIES - THE END
Message-ID: <1993May23.003623.24102@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <PC123.93May22195506@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 23 May 93 00:36:23 GMT
Lines: 57
In article <PC123.93May22195506@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk> pc123@cus.cam.ac.uk (Pete Chown) writes:
>Since beginning the shared library project I have received mailboxes
>full of flames every day. If you don't like my way of doing shared
>libraries, go and do them yourself. I've got better things to do than
>to spend all day debugging an implementation that people don't even
>want. So I will not be making a second release of my shared library
>package, or supporting the first one.
This is unfortunate. Even if the impementation is not one I would choose,
it's better than anything else currently out there (which is currently
nothing), and it's certainly an improvement over Joerg's original code
(it might be considered a 2.0 version of that code).
Seriously, you should not be flaming people for contributions, even if
you disagree philosophically with the contributions unless you are
willing to provide an implementation based on your own ideas as part
of the argument against their ideas. Anything else is not constructive,
and we've seen where that gets us.
My personal misgivings on the issue are based on me being, basically,
in competition with Pete for the shared library consumers, and the
timing with regard to the 0.2 release. I certainly can't provide code
until the end of June, which is what I told Bill the last time I talked
to him... Pete, at least, isn't pushing what might as well be vaoprware.
There are some long term technical issues that are introduced by the
method of implementation which we will have to live with because of
Bill's adoption of his library implementation for 0.2, but this is a
choice made by Bill, not one made by Pete. Pete has simply provided
an implementation.
If you feel the implementation should (or should not) be included in 0.2,
well, Bill's address is in his postings, and you should make your views
known to him rather than Pete. I am sure that part of Bill's decision
was based on being beat up in email for not having shared libraries in
0.1, and these messages probably originated from a lot of the same people.
>I was going to contribute some other things as well - for example some
>fixes to the include files that correct a serious bug. But I don't
>think I can be bothered to make a diff, since it'll only get flamed.
>Instead I leave finding this bug as an exercise for the reader, armed
>with the ANSI document.
This is *extremely* unfortunate; I can only hope that like Chris, after
being flamed for restricting distribution of his beta com drivers, you
decide at some later date that the opinions of the complainers are not
important.
Terry Lambert
terry@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me