From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Feb 21 16:48:56 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id QAA08597 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:48:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id QAA08592 for ; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 16:48:52 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id RAA02272; Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:45:02 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199702220045.RAA02272@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: RMS's view on dynamic linking To: nate@trout.mt.sri.com (Nate Williams) Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 17:45:02 -0700 (MST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <199702212325.QAA06245@trout.mt.sri.com> from "Nate Williams" at Feb 21, 97 04:25:27 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > According to rms, with whom I just corresponded about this issue, > that's not so. > > His view is that linking two programs is not "mere aggregation", > regardless or whether it's static or dynamic linking. I think that loading an application into a virtual address space is "linking" the application with the OS. RMS's drawing the line at the "where do you want to link today?" level has never made sense to me... but I'm merely an engineer, not a political scientist. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.