On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 01:15:58PM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > > :> is the path you've chosen to go then you have an obligation not to > :> tear out major existing system capabilities, such as the ability to > :> generate static binaries, in the process. > : > :If this is what you think has happened, you're living in some parallel > :fantasy universe. > > I am simply repeating the reasoning being used for going to a dynamic > root. Forgive me if I misread it, but I believe the argument was that > FreeBSD-5 was migrating to NSS and NSS's DLL mechanism does not work > in a static world, therefore dynamic becomes the default. If I am > wrong and NSS's DLL mechanism can be used in a static world, please > correct me!
No, what you said was "not to tear out..the ability to generate static binaries". That's completely different, and is absolutely not what has happened, or what is planned. Static binaries continue to be supported, available, and work with the system NSS and PAM modules as before. > :> There is a lot of circular reasoning going on here... it's the same sort > :> of circular reasoning that John uses to justify some of the more esoteric > :> scheduling mechanisms in -current. A because of B because of A, and > :> to hell with anyone who wanted to use C. > : > :Keep the ad homenim attacks to yourself, buster! This was uncalled-for. > : > :Kris > > Well, the scheduler arguments are more involved but I am not incorrect > here. We're not talking about schedulers. What is at issue is that you decided, for no reason appropriate to the topic of discussion, to mention that you think an unrelated FreeBSD developer has difficulties with logical reasoning. What the hell, Matt? By what standards of behaviour is this acceptable? We have rules of conduct on the FreeBSD mailing lists, and people have been removed in the past because they were unable to hold themselves to them. Don't think that you're exempt just because you're Matt Dillon. http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/eresources.html#ERESOURCES-MAIL Personal attacks and profanity (in the context of an argument) are not allowed, and that includes users and developers alike. Gross breaches of netiquette, like excerpting or reposting private mail when permission to do so was not and would not be forthcoming, are frowned upon but not specifically enforced. However, there are also very few cases where such content would fit within the charter of a list and it would therefore probably rate a warning (or ban) on that basis alone. Kris
Description: PGP signature