From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Jan 3 20:39:17 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id UAA08754 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 20:39:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from shell.monmouth.com (pechter@shell.monmouth.com [205.164.220.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id UAA08745 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 20:39:12 -0800 (PST) Received: (from pechter@localhost) by shell.monmouth.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id XAA25924; Wed, 3 Jan 1996 23:37:32 -0500 From: Bill/Carolyn Pechter Message-Id: <199601040437.XAA25924@shell.monmouth.com> Subject: Re: Demand loading (Re: FreeBSD, Zappa & PCI) To: chuckr@glue.umd.edu (Chuck Robey) Date: Wed, 3 Jan 1996 23:37:31 -0500 (EST) Cc: FreeBSD-hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD-hackers) In-Reply-To: from "Chuck Robey" at Jan 3, 96 09:35:59 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > Chuck Robey chuckr@eng.umd.edu wrote: > On Wed, 3 Jan 1996, Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > I don't have any personal antipathy against ELF (I must have missed > > Joerg's original post - I've only seen references in follow-ups) I > > just have an antipathy against: > > > > 2. Adopting new technologies before they're ready. Would anyone > > mind just a little if we waited for Linux to go to their second > > tools rev in their position as ELF-leader? :-) > > > > Jordan, I can understand your first argument, but since SVR4 has been > running ELF for quite some time now, well, the second argument is a > little harder to see, for me. Does ELF really still qualify as new > technology? > My latest Linux CD set has the Red Hat 2.1 set which is their second all ELF release. Bill ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bill Pechter/Carolyn Pechter | The postmaster always pings twice. Lakewood MicroSystems | 17 Meredith Drive, 908-389-3592 | Tinton Falls, NJ 07724 pechter@shell.monmouth.com |