Re: [libc-alpha] Re: Wish for 2002 ...

[Shawn Starr <spstarr at sh0n dot net>]

On Sun, 2002-01-13 at 04:12, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Shawn Starr wrote:
> 
> > While I'm not on the mailing list and do use C I think we need to make
> > sure:
> > 
> > We do not isolate ourself from the other UNIX platforms just for sake
> 
> What ``other''? What part of GNU is Not Unix isn't clear? :)

Linux Is Not GNU in my books. Does that mean FreeBSD has to be
GNU/FreeBSD because they use the GNU Compiler and other GNU tools for
some programs in their ports tree? Sorry, I don't buy that. 

> 
> GNU/Linux us a Unix-like platform, because it makes sense to be that
> right now. Though not nearly as much sense as it did in 1992.
> 
> The only operating system interface standards have come out of the Unix
> world. It makes sense to implement standards and to continue to track them
> where it makes sense. If there is a standard about how to do something,
> it makes sense to do it that way rather than invent your own way of doing
> it. Inventing your own way is counterproductive, and can only be due to
> hidden motives, like getting people to write lots of software to your
> unique interfaces, so that less of that software is available to users
> of other platforms.

 
> On the other hand, someone's locally developed functions are not
> standards, so it doesn't make sense to implement those, except when
> those functions are proprietary, and some important free software 
> needs them.

Agreed.

 
> You are confusing Unix with some kind of ideology, or ``happy family''
> or something. Get over your stupid nostalgic emotions and start thinking
> rationally.

No, I'm concentrating on API functionality. Get off the 'zelotishness'. 
You seem to concentrate on keeping the glibc library wrapped in politics
and forget about the COMMON USERS who write programs in C. 

> 
> > of POSIX standards because then we'll loose in the long run. It would be
> 
> > Why don't we have a libbsd library for non standard functions and keep
> > them out of glibc? Then if they got approved be moved into glibc?
> 
> If there is a program that you desperately want to run, and it is only
> portable to BSD, then install and run BSD. How about that?

No, I will ram the functionality into Linux if I had to weither you like
it or not.

> 
> If people want to write code that requires BSD, they are entitled to do
> so. But the world doesn't owe them portability in return, and they
> probably don't expect it! I would hope that people coding for BSD are
> competent enough to *know* when they are making a nonportable program, so
> that when they do so it can only be the case that they don't *care*. When
> the developer of the nonportable program doesn't care, why should the
> GNU/Linux maintainers supply *extra* care to compensate the user for
> that other developer's lack of caring?
> 
> By the way, can you name a BSD-only program that you would you like to
> run on your GNU/Linux system but presently cannot?  Speaking for myself,
> I cannot name such a program.
>
There are some but I can't think of any at the moment that I need.

> However, in 1990 there was sure lots of free software running on Unix that
> I wanted to be able to run on a free operating system, using commodity
> hardware. BSD hadn't been unencumbered yet; there was no free
> implementation of Unix.
> 
> So you see, aping someone's interfaces makes sense when there is a whole
> base of software that you would like to run. In particular when that
> software is free, and is ``trapped'' by the programming interfaces of
> a non-free system.
> 
> > Is there harm in doing this?
> 
> No harm at all; go ahead and start libbsd. I suspect you will probably
> need some kernel hacking to get every last feature of BSD implemented
> right.  What if the BSD program wants some system call that doesn't
> exist in the Linux kernel, and can't be effectively emulated in libbsd?
> It might make more sense to just emulate BSD at the system call level.
> Then you could just use actual BSD libraries instead of writing them
> from scratch.

Agreed.

> 
>