Subject: Re: HEADS UP: migration to fully dynamic linked "base" system
To: Jason R Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Johnny Billquist <email@example.com>
Date: 08/27/2002 02:53:51
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 02:38:56AM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> > My point is basically that Unix as such don't know anything about shared
> > libraries. Instead you have a piece of code linked into your binary, which
> Right, nor should it. It would simply be inappropriate to have potentially
> many linkers in the kernel (one for each ABI you might support in userland).
That's a way of arguing that it's a good thing.
I wasn't making an argument about that. I was just claiming that the whole
dynamic library implementation in Unix is a hack added long after the
initial design was made. It wasn't though about, and not included in Unix
from the beginning. Nor have it ever been addressed from a system point of
view. Instead someone came up with a hairy scheme where each program
itself was responsible for implementing the dynamic libraries.
I won't go into the question wether it's a good or bad design. It has it's
merits, but it's still a hack.
I also happen to have opinions about the hack for handling wildcards,
among other things, but do you really want us to argue about religion?
I consider a whole lot of things in Unix as being hacks. But Unix spread
and flourish with them, while OSes that I like have gone to a silent
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: firstname.lastname@example.org || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol