Subject: Re: integrating PAM
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Peter Bex <Peter.Bex@student.kun.nl>
Date: 01/23/2003 22:50:12
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, Jan 23, 2003 at 04:25:10PM -0500, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> Our libc is already something like a eighth the size of the glibc used in
> most Linux distributions. Do you actually know anything about any of
> what you're ranting about, or are you just ranting for the sake of rantin=
I am astounded! I can't even begin to imagine what Linux libcs have what we
don't. What has been left out?
Don't get me wrong, I always like smaller, faster, better. I'm just very cu=
what it is that makes Linux glibc so incredibly bloated.
(I come to like NetBSD more and more and Linux less and less the more I find
out by reading these mailing lists and some source code)
I mean, we've got it all: ANSI, POSIX, whatnot. And still it's only an eigh=
KDE builds, Gnome builds, Mozilla builds, StarOffice builds and these are l=
the largest packages that are available. (I probably left out some stuff but
I'm not interested in bloatware at all so don't blame me)
Large would suggest they would at some point use funky features of the C li=
but everything compiles perfectly, even Mozilla with all its warnings (Those
really scare me. :) I haven't investigated the source code at all, though=
Sorry if this post doesn't mean a lot of sense, it's kinda late right now.
Although some would call this early ;)
Anyway I'd really appreciate it if someone could explain this to me.
"The process of preparing programs for a digital computer
is especially attractive, not only because it can be economically
and scientifically rewarding, but also because it can be an aesthetic
experience much like composing poetry or music."
-- Donald Knuth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----