Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 17:46:21 +1100 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: Jonathan McKeown <jonathan+freebsd-hackers@hst.org.za> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: find -lname and -ilname implemented Message-ID: <20080226064621.GA83599@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <200802260727.30384.jonathan%2Bfreebsd-hackers@hst.org.za> References: <200802232322.45288.jonathan%2Bfreebsd-hackers@hst.org.za> <20080225203341.GA4150@kobe.laptop> <47C349D9.8090504@dial.pipex.com> <200802260727.30384.jonathan%2Bfreebsd-hackers@hst.org.za>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:27:30AM +0200, Jonathan McKeown wrote: >What I wasn't thrilled about, and hoped to trigger a discussion of, was th= e=20 >apparent suggestion that FreeBSD must be Linux-compatible at all costs=20 >because weight of numbers makes Linux and GNU a de-facto standard. Whilst I agree that people have stated that GNU/Linux is a de-facto standard, I don't believe that "FreeBSD must be Linux-compatible at all costs" is a logical consequence of this and don't believe anyone implying it in this thread. There _is_ a fine line between adding functionality because it's easy to do/provides useful functionality/ makes it easier to port code and turning FreeBSD into a BSD-licensed Linux. I would suggest that a general discussion of this boundary belongs in a distinct thread. >I do think that where we are having problems because Linux developers are= =20 >stuck in their bubble and don't understand the concept of portability, This is aided and abetted by the GNU embrace-and-extend philosophy. >hope) - because there will always be some differences: and after all, it w= as=20 >the GNU project that came up with autoconf, wasn't it? GNU autoconf may have an admirable objective but it fails dismally as a tool for assisting in the creation of portable software. Based on my recent experiences with a variety of common autoconf FOSS applications, I'd go so far as to say that it impedes portability. --=20 Peter Jeremy Please excuse any delays as the result of my ISP's inability to implement an MTA that is either RFC2821-compliant or matches their claimed behaviour. --d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFHw7W9/opHv/APuIcRAtJvAJ0ZeJJphoH2WsZCwtdWBeAaBZkCWgCcDAGw EXZRLtfqb3HjIA+ARP7PtIA= =bJ/5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --d6Gm4EdcadzBjdND--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080226064621.GA83599>