From owner-freebsd-hackers  Tue Jan 21 11:41:11 1997
Return-Path: <owner-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA08009
          for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:41:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from etinc.com (et-gw-fr1.etinc.com [204.141.244.98])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id LAA08003
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 11:41:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ntws (ntws.etinc.com [204.141.95.142]) by etinc.com (8.8.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id OAA00330; Tue, 21 Jan 1997 14:43:44 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970121144017.00a8dd10@etinc.com>
X-Sender: dennis@etinc.com
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 14:40:24 -0500
To: Peter Mutsaers <plm@xs4all.nl>
From: dennis <dennis@etinc.com>
Subject: Re: Commerical applications (was: Development and validation
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

At 07:46 AM 1/21/97 +0100, you wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Jan 1997 13:47:35 -0700 (MST), Terry Lambert
>>> <terry@lambert.org> said:
>
>    >> > 1)	Linux has ELF.
>    >> > 2)	FreeBSD does not.
>    >> > 3)	ELF is desirable
>    >> > 4)	Linux is doing something right that FreeBSD isn't.
>    >> 
>    >> Item 4 is *NOT* the inevitable result of 1, 2, and 3.  You've
>    >> forgotten that ELF was *necessary* in Linux in order for it to
>    >> get beyond a certain stage, and it's not (yet) necessary in
>    >> FreeBSD.
>
>    TL> ELF was *not* necessary for Linux to obtain BSD-style shared
>    TL> libraries; BSD is proof of that.  If you are referring to a
>    TL> different stage than that, then I argue that the same is true
>    TL> of BSD.
>
>    >> Plus, the entire move to ELF was *NOT* done with the users best
>    >> interest in mind.
>
>    TL> If FreeBSD did not move to ELF because it was "protecting" the
>    TL> best interests of its users, then it made an error.
>
>During Linux's move to ELF I was using it and very shortly after ELF
>first became available I converted my system to it (about one year
>before official release).
>
>I think that the move to ELF was not hard for users and I see not how
>it could have been done otherwise: ELF and a.out were available
>concurrently (and still are).

Yes, but it was a nightmare for commercial vendors, because twice as many
scenarios and versions had to be supported.

If you're going to change, change all at once at a particular Release. Having
twice as many scenarios to debug is difficult for everyone. The big problem
with Linux is that there are too many versions, too many patches, too many
options, and too few people running even close to the same thing.

Dennis