*BSD News Article 64974


Return to BSD News archive

#! rnews 1792 bsd
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.bhp.com.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!solace!umdac!newsfeed.sunet.se!news00.sunet.se!sunic!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.cs.utah.edu!cc.usu.edu!brandon
From: brandon@cc.usu.edu (Brandon Gillespie)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux
Message-ID: <1996Apr4.105626.77611@cc.usu.edu>
Date: 4 Apr 96 10:56:26 MDT
References: <4issad$h1o@nadine.teleport.com> <4jejjt$cdb@park.uvsc.edu> <4jvdiq$nh4@park.uvsc.edu>
Organization: Utah State University
Lines: 19

In article <4jvdiq$nh4@park.uvsc.edu>, Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> writes:
> It's probably worth most of these to open the doors to future
> use of additional elf features, however, even if ELF isn't
> really as wonderful as Nick & company would have you believe.

Why use 'ELF' at all then?  Sure there is a call for getting a 'better' binary
format, holding up some of the bonuses of ELF as a reason to change.  I saw
some from the Linux camp talking about making their own extensions to ELF.  In
my own experience its generally better to not even try half compliance with
extensions than it is to simply have your own standard, even if it really is
just ELF+extensions.  Basically, what is stopping people from developing an
improved ELF and calling it something else?  Forgive my naive approach here, I
have absolutely no knowledge of binary formats other than that of a passing
programmer, but I dont see the reason to hold back to ANY system which has
acknowledged problems.  I also think it would be an applaudable effort of
the FreeBSD and the Linux camp could do as was suggested once and work together
to created an extended ELF format (whatever it would be named).

-Brandon