Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!qns3.qns.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.sprintlink.net!new-news.sprintlink.net!helena.MT.net!nate From: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: FreeBSD vs Linux Date: 5 Apr 1996 23:41:19 GMT Organization: SRI Intl. - Montana Operations Lines: 77 Message-ID: <4k4b2v$6sl@helena.MT.net> References: <4issad$h1o@nadine.teleport.com> <31642098.75AB4317@gnu.ai.mit.edu> <4k2cvc$j8e@park.uvsc.edu> <31657509.5E45C160@gnu.ai.mit.edu> Reply-To: "Nate Williams" <nate@sneezy.sri.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: trout.sri.mt.net In article <31657509.5E45C160@gnu.ai.mit.edu>, H.J. Lu <hjl@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote: >Terry Lambert wrote: >> In other words, why is it necessary for FreeBSD to switch over >> to ELF? "To find ELF bugs" is a silly rationale, even if >> FreeBSD were the only source of feedback... > >I have been flamed on that by people like you from >the Linux camp :-(. Someone has to do it. For Linux it was necessary for the developers sanity. For FreeBSD, we already kept our sanity by not allowing the kludged shlib approach previously used in Linux. So, someone doesn't have to do it since it provides no immediate gains. (This has been said so many times yet you fail to grasp what that means.) >If not for Linux, >your FreeBSD/ELF tools may not like what you have today. If not for Soloaris, Linux would not have ELF tools. What's your point? >I thought FreeBSD might be fun. It seems that I was wrong :-(. If you think an OS is more fun than one another because it uses a particular binary format you are a poor judge of OS's. >> I don't disagree that there *can be* long term benefits to ELF, >> only that there is any immediate benefit, other than "it is new, >> we must flock to it in a zombie-like stupor". > >Assume you have to switch to ELF, why not now? There is no immediate benefit, and significant short-term costs. If/when a significant need arises a switch will occur, but until that happens delaying it only makes the development tools more stable. >It will make >commercial software vendors easier to write softwares for >you. This is patently untrue. The difficulty level of writing software is completely unrelated to the binary format. The ease of building programs and shared libraries in Linux and FreeBSD are *exactly* the same. Again, don't assume that the difficulty in building the older Linux shlib are in any way related to the binary format. We've had this discussion privately before, yet you still seem to forget that the *exact* same steps are used to build FreeBSD binaries/libraries as in Linux. And I mean *EXACT*, down to the exact same commands and parameters. >> You can't claim superiority unless you can demonstrate actively >> available features which would not be available otherwise. For >> Linux, it's BSD-style shared libraries and LGPL relink clause >> workaround. For BSD, which has BSD-style shared libraries -- >> hence the name, and doesn't use LGPLed libraries (and hence >> doesn't suffer the relink clause problems over major revision >> number changes), you have *not* demonstrated anything beyond >> "Little. Yellow. Different. Better" (the same reasons we >> should all buy Advil instead of Tylenol), and "Better" is still >> up in the air. > >Ask your FreeBSD/ELF gurus for why ELF is better than a.out >and what it can do for you and a.out cannot. It's been said *many* times what ELF *could* buy you, but none of those are applicable to the current system. The benefits do NOT outweigh the costs involved. Nate -- nate@sneezy.sri.com | Research Engineer, SRI Intl. - Montana Operations nate@trout.sri.MT.net | Loving life in God's country, the great state of work #: (406) 449-7662 | Montana. home #: (406) 443-7063 | A fly pole and a 4x4 Chevy truck = Heaven on Earth