Subject: Re: PAM
To: Greywolf <email@example.com>
From: Greg A. Woods <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/26/2002 01:49:19
[ On Wednesday, September 25, 2002 at 16:20:54 (-0700), Greywolf wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: PAM
> POV: I try to take a reasonable stance on this sort of thing. I'm not
> altogether enthused with the frailty with which I perceive dynamic/modular
> loading to be fraught, and this includes PAM and its current complexities.
> However, I do think that to shut ourselves off to it altogether is not
> entirely wise. If we stop and stagnate, we die faster than we will if we
> move forward and at least attempt to meet up with the rest of the world.
You have a strange outlook on these things.
"dynamic loading" does not equate to "modern" -- just because the
monkeys in Redmond are doing it doesn't mean it's a "good thing", nor
that it's even remotely modern.
Avoiding "dynamic loading" does not equate to "stagnation".
Don't confuse the kind of run-time binding that Multics had with
anything even remotely like what ELF shared libraries, ld.so, and
dlopen() et al try to do.
Do not confuse pluggable modules with dynamic loading -- the latter is
only one way to achieve the same functional goal.
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 218-0098; <email@example.com>; <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Planix, Inc. <email@example.com>; VE3TCP; Secrets of the Weird <firstname.lastname@example.org>