Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery
From: allbery@NCoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Shared Lib Question (ISC)
Message-ID: <1991May11.011213.4846@NCoast.ORG>
Date: 11 May 91 01:12:13 GMT
References: <276@rwing.UUCP> <162@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR/AA)
Followup-To: comp.unix.internals
Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast)
Lines: 26

As quoted from <162@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> by mohta@necom830.cc.titech.ac.jp (Masataka Ohta):
+---------------
| In article <276@rwing.UUCP> pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto) writes:
| >I have noticed with interest the discussion going on regarding shared
| >libraries.  However, what is obvious is that there are several kinds
| >of shared libaries, all using some different scheme to operate.
| 
| It proves that the concept of shared libraries is not so simple.
+---------------

No, it proves that anything, regardless of its simplicity, can be made
arbitrarily and unnecessarily complex.  SVR3 shared libraries are a pretty
good example of that.  But it does NOT mean that any given complex
implementation is proof that the *concept* is complex.

Quite aside from the other complexities underlying such things as varying
shared library implementations:  marketing decisions, for example.  Now
THERE'S a complex system for you to try to unravel.  Good luck --- you'll need
it.

++Brandon
-- 
Me: Brandon S. Allbery			  Ham: KB8JRR/AA  10m,6m,2m,220,440,1.2
Internet: allbery@NCoast.ORG		       (restricted HF at present)
Delphi: ALLBERY				 AMPR: kb8jrr.AmPR.ORG [44.70.4.88]
uunet!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!allbery       KB8JRR @ WA8BXN.OH