Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!auspex!guy
From: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Shared Lib Question (ISC)
Keywords: ISC i386 shared libraries
Message-ID: <7762@auspex.auspex.com>
Date: 12 May 91 18:21:50 GMT
References: <162@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp> <7690@auspex.auspex.com> <169@titccy.cc.titech.ac.jp>
Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara
Lines: 15

>Apparently, you haven't used many OSes. Most OSes do many things badly.

Irrelevant.  I said that different OSes provide various functions in
different fashions, which means that the fact that different OSes
implement shared libraries isn't any sort of valid argument against
shared libraries; your statement doesn't have any relevance to that.

So what's an OS that doesn't "do many things badly"?

>Moreover, there seems to be no right implementation of shared libraries, so
>far.

OK, so what would you consider a "right" implementation of them?  What
don't you like about, say, Multics's implementation, or VMS's, or
Aegis's, or SunOS 4.x/S5R4's, or OSF/1's, or....?