Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!destroyer!news.itd.umich.edu!stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu!pauls From: pauls@css.itd.umich.edu (Paul Southworth) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Subject: Re: SHARED LIBRARIES - THE END Date: 24 May 1993 17:20:56 GMT Organization: University of Michigan ITD Consulting and Support Services Lines: 23 Message-ID: <1tr05o$qaa@terminator.rs.itd.umich.edu> References: <PC123.93May22195506@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk> <1993May23.003623.24102@fcom.cc.utah.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: stimpy.css.itd.umich.edu In article <1993May23.003623.24102@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes: >In article <PC123.93May22195506@bootes.cus.cam.ac.uk> pc123@cus.cam.ac.uk (Pete Chown) writes: >>So I will not be making a second release of my shared library >>package, or supporting the first one. [...] >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. Um, how can there be competition when 386BSD is not a commodity? You all are producing freely distributable code, right? As long as there is interest in both packages, why should there be only one? I mean, apart from your respective egos, in what sense can this competition exist? Please clarify. I mean, it would be neat to have the two of you work on one package, but I don't consider it a great loss that you choose to work separately -- it's your code after all. [And I agree, the choosy beggars who leech and then whinge can go fuck themselves, to put it as bluntly as possible.] pauls@umich.edu