[I should kick myself for feeding the troll, but sometines it's worth
watching the troll squirm.]

On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Greg A. Woods wrote:

: You really didn't pay attention to what I said.

"No, dear," I understood exactly what you said.  To wit:

: The maintenance issues you speak of is completely separate and must be
: balanced _against_ the benefit I speak of.

This repeats one of my sentences, pretty much verbatim, so I wonder how it
suddenly means something different or bad.  The maintenance issues *have*
been balanced against the benfits of dynamic linking, and in the most common
cases, dynamic linking won.  That bloody stain on the floor was a horse, but
it was beaten to a pulp years ago and has since decayed and seeped deep into
the concrete.  The smell still comes back to haunt us in threads like these.

You should, in all honesty, count your lucky stars that you still have the
ability to link programs statically -- and that people have been trying Hard
to keep static linking in mind when introducing abstraction frameworks.
After all, it's nearly impossible to do anything particularly complex (in
the "general-purpose OS" sense) on Solaris or Linux in a statically linked
world, but NetBSD has been rather good about keeping that ability intact.

Now, what you should be doing, rather than twisting the meaning out of my
words and falsely insinuating deception like a two-bit fascist political
shill[*], is opening your mind a little.  Or, to put it more bluntly:
Times change; get with the program, or shut the %#@* up already.  We're both
giving everyone a headache, and I'm tired of contributing to it.
(Fortunately, those with commit privileges tend to stay more level-headed.)

I give up on this thread.  "You win."  I've moved the lists to Bcc:, to end
it here.

==

[*] Ann Coulter would be a good example.  Come to think of it, your writing
    style is very similar to hers.

-- 
-- Todd Vierling <tv@duh.org> <tv@pobox.com>