This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002 ...
- From: Kaz Kylheku <kaz at ashi dot footprints dot net>
- To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds at transmeta dot com>
- Cc: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb at becket dot net>, Paul Eggert <eggert at twinsun dot com>, <leclerc at austin dot sns dot slb dot com>, <security-audit at ferret dot lmh dot ox dot ac dot uk>, <libc-alpha at sources dot redhat dot com>, <open-source at csl dot sri dot com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 19:00:09 -0800 (PST)
- Subject: Re: [libc-alpha] Re: [open-source] Re: Wish for 2002 ...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > However, it is. And unless the glibc maintainers are willing to patch
> > all the programs that use it, those programs are currently not
> > portable.
> You're saying: other people did stupid choices, and glibc should make
> stupid choices of its own to cover for those other people?
> More importantly, even _if_ glibc were to make that choice, those stupid
> programs would STILL not be portable.
Exactly what I've been saying. They would be *less* nonportable by
exactly *one* platform, out of a large number.
The problem with some people is that they have Unix blinders on their
If all the flavors of BSD plus proprietary Unixes have some function,
but GNU/Linux does not, then GNU/Linux is the rogue, because it has been
grudgingly accepted into the Unix family, yet it is the last remaining
barrier to the portability of these functions. So it is not pulling
with the rest of the gang, so to speak.
Quite simply, if you are wearing Unix blinders, there are no