Wish for 2002 ...

[Jim Hebert]

On 10 Jan 2002, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

> Sure they do impose new difficulties!
> 
> Once we could say "BSD programs compile under glibc with no
> library-related incompatibilities" and "A goal of glibc is to function
> as a replacement for the system library".
> 
> With deviations like this, we lose the ability to say either of those

That's a tautology. "XYZ doesn't cause difficulties." "Yes it does, it
makes it difficult to truthfully say <false statement>."

To wit:

glibc is 1283964 bytes on my machine. If the glibc maintainers send me a 
new version with this function added, I won't be able to say that anymore.

> reason for caring about standards in the first place.

This is astounding. Some BSD apps suddenly begin using a NON-standard and
known-at-the-time-to-be-non-portable API, which breaks the vaunted 
property of glibc's ability to drop in, and somehow that's glibc's fault.
And now 3 lists worth of people have to hear this highly ironic view of
what it means to "[care] about standards"?

re-lurking,
jim

--
"The BSD groups are like high school social circles. No, really! That's the
best analogy I can think of!" Matt Dillon, FreeBSD VM/kernel developer
                                http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=153