Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!xanth!tadguy
From: tadguy@xanth.UUCP (Tad Guy)
Newsgroups: news.software.b
Subject: Re: Somebody is generating strange References: lines
Message-ID: <2575@xanth.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: xanth.2575
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Sep-87 10:20:00 EDT
References: <1665@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM) <8579@utzoo.UUCP) <6886@eddie.MIT.EDU) <2501@xanth.UUCP> <2067@sfsup.UUCP> <2904@phri.UUCP> <1681@terminus.UUCP>
Reply-To: tadguy@xanth.UUCP (Tad Guy)
Organization: Old Dominion University, Norfolk Va.
Lines: 62
Summary: Nope, not <2501@xanth.UUCP>

In article <1681@terminus.UUCP> nyssa@terminus.UUCP (The Boatyard) writes:
>In article <2904@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
>>	Take a look at the "References: " line on this article, and on the
>>various articles referred to.  Notice that the first few references start
>>with "<" but end with ")" instead of ">" like they are supposed to.  What's
>>going on?  Theye were like that when they got here.
>
>Real easy one.
>
>The person who posted 2501@xanth.UUCP obviously did an "s/>/)/gp"
>(or similar editor command) to defeat the inserted text restriction.

I'm not the one who posted <2501@xanth.UUCP>, but that article's
included text starts with >, not ), so I doubt he did that.
Additionally, the references line in that articles already has some (but
not all) of the References: line munged.  Below is <2501@xanth.UUCP> as
it appears on xanth.

	...tad

Tad Guy         (804)-440-4529              UUCP:  tadguy@xanth.UUCP
Department of Computer Science                or:  ...!uunet!xanth!tadguy
Old Dominion University                 new ARPA:  tadguy@odu.edu
Norfolk, Virginia  23529-0162           old ARPA:  tadguy%xanth@SUN.COM

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: xanth!kyle
From: kyle@xanth.UUCP (Kyle Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.unix.wizards,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Big Programs Hurt Performance
Keywords: cost of bloated programs
Message-ID: <2501@xanth.UUCP>
Date: 20 Sep 87 19:44:33 GMT
References: <1665@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM) <8579@utzoo.UUCP) <6886@eddie.MIT.EDU) <14888@topaz.rutgers.edu>
Lines: 17
Xref: xanth comp.arch:2526 comp.unix.wizards:6948 comp.os.misc:157

In <14888@topaz.rutgers.edu>, hedrick@topaz.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) sez:
> You don't really want the window system in ROM.

You're right.  I typed "ROM" but I was thinking of protected RAM.
I certainly don't want a buggy window system burned into ROM for
posterity.

> What you really want is shared libraries.  That way, only one copy
> of the code is shared by all programs that use it, but you can
> change it.

This doesn't sound much different from the current scheme.  The
advantage of having the window system in protected RAM is that you
don't have gargantuan executables for small programs; calls to system
tools are simply linked to their known entry points in memory.

Please explain more about shared libraries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------