Re: glibc and the Linux libc fork

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

Alex Hudson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>   http://linuxgazette.net/issue32/tag_libc5.html

Interesting.  I've added it now.

> I remember another one, but can't find it I'm afraid.

Whenever you remember, let me know and I'll add it.


-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __ \ http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _ \  GPLv3 and other work supported by
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \   Fellowship: http://www.fsfe.org
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: glibc and the Linux libc fork

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > fork were GNU's cathedral-like development style at that time (see
   > also the egcs fork) combined with the focus on the Hurd instead of

   FWIW, glibc implements large parts of the Hurd and thus one should
   not wondper that it is quite complex.

The Hurd parts are quite simple, and few, if one compares to just the
ELF loader.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: glibc and the Linux libc fork

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

Oleg Verych <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Let me express it (a wild guess) and save your time for more useful
> things.

All very interesting, but not very useable for adding anything to the short
history I wrote.

I hope you'll understand that I don't have time to go through Drepper's
homepage to make deductions from his writings.

If you happen to find a more directly on-topic link, please keep me in mind.

-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __ \ http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _ \  GPLv3 and other work supported by
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \   Fellowship: http://www.fsfe.org
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: glibc and the Linux libc fork

[Ciaran O'Riordan]

Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The section heading "glib 2.0" should be "glibc 2.0".

Fixed, thanks.

> Ask the main players? Roland McGrath

Good idea.

> And you can also ask Ulrich
> Drepper.
...
> "... Stallman 
> ... embrace-and-extend if performed by the Evil of the
> North-West..."

That doesn't seem so relevent.  It was four and a half years after glibc-2.0
was released, and nothing ever came of Drepper's accusations other than a
slashdot story.


-- 
Ciarán O'Riordan __ \ http://fsfeurope.org/projects/gplv3
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _ \  GPLv3 and other work supported by
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \   Fellowship: http://www.fsfe.org
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: glibc and the Linux libc fork

[Werner Koch]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

> fork were GNU's cathedral-like development style at that time (see
> also the egcs fork) combined with the focus on the Hurd instead of

FWIW, glibc implements large parts of the Hurd and thus one should not
wonder that it is quite complex.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner


___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: glibc and the Linux libc fork

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Having read about the libc5 fork of glibc in Rick Moen's "Fear of
   Forking" essay, I went looking for more info about this fork since
   it seems to have healed so well that no one ever talks about it
   anymore.  It also seems strangely underdocumented for a 10 year old
   event in a community that values putting everything about
   everything online.

   
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/history_of_glibc_and_linux_libc

   If anyone knows any other sources of info that I didn't reference,
   I'd be happy to hear about them.

You could ask the horse directly instead of relying on third-hand
information.  Roland McGrath (person who wrote glibc 1.x and 2.x) and
H.J. Lu who maintained Linux libc4 and libc5.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: glibc and the Linux libc fork

[Jeroen Dekkers]

At 19 Jun 2007 14:24:13 +0100,
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Having read about the libc5 fork of glibc in Rick Moen's "Fear of Forking"
> essay, I went looking for more info about this fork since it seems to have
> healed so well that no one ever talks about it anymore.  It also seems
> strangely underdocumented for a 10 year old event in a community that values
> putting everything about everything online.
> 
> http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/history_of_glibc_and_linux_libc

The section heading "glib 2.0" should be "glibc 2.0".
 
> If anyone knows any other sources of info that I didn't reference, I'd be
> happy to hear about them.

Ask the main players? Roland McGrath, [EMAIL PROTECTED], the original
author of glibc and still one of the maintainers can probably tell you
everything you want to know. And you can also ask Ulrich
Drepper. There is also this glibc announcement from him,
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/libc-announce/2001/msg0.html (at the
end of the announcement):

"The glibc situation is even more frightening if one realizes the story
behind it.  When I started porting glibc 1.09 to Linux (which
eventually became glibc 2.0) Stallman threatened me and tried to force
me to contribute rather to the work on the Hurd.  Work on Linux would
be counter-productive to the Free Software course.  Then came, what
would be called embrace-and-extend if performed by the Evil of the
North-West, and his claim for everything which lead to Linux's
success."


Although it's before my time, my guess is that the main reasons of the
fork were GNU's cathedral-like development style at that time (see
also the egcs fork) combined with the focus on the Hurd instead of
Linux.

Jeroen Dekkers
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: glibc and the Linux libc fork

[Oleg Verych]

On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 02:24:13PM +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> 
> Having read about the libc5 fork of glibc in Rick Moen's "Fear of Forking"
> essay, I went looking for more info about this fork since it seems to have
> healed so well that no one ever talks about it anymore.  It also seems
> strangely underdocumented for a 10 year old event in a community that values
> putting everything about everything online.
> 
> http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/history_of_glibc_and_linux_libc

As you write "just before my time". My opinion is, that because of that
your problem is.

> If anyone knows any other sources of info that I didn't reference, I'd be
> happy to hear about them.

Let me express it (a wild guess) and save your time for more useful
things.

What Linux was in 1994/1998? I bet you have no idea. But some major
points can be derived by deduction. Just a few of them follow.

It wasn't about standard compliance -- to have more paper work, than
coding and having ever growing hardware actually running that kernel.

It wasn't about have kernel today enterprise tomorrow -- money and
attention of big (any?) companies.

It wasn't cathedral after all (you know what to read about that).

To have any kind of libc as accessible userspace was a need, GNU
project failed to provide. After all FSF lost to Open Source.
You must, as i've wrote in my first mail here, build monument to Linus
Torvalds. Because of that tiny-crucial part of the operating system --
WORKING kernel.

Yes, now it's easy to talk about POSIX, 64 bits and others things in
glibc back in that time. But this have no connection to Linux kernel
at all. Do you know why?

Because Cygnus have their business, learn what exact business. And as
a very wild guess i can speculate, that glibc by Cygnus was developed
using Solaris as f*cking *working* kernel. Feel free to check technical
writings on .

If Linux by Linus Torvalds and friends after all reached maturity
level, when Solaris can be abandoned, again make something useful --
build monument to him!


I'm back coding.
--
-o--=O`C  info emacs : FAQ
 #oo'L O  info make  : not found
<___=E M  man gcc: not found
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: glibc and the Linux libc fork

[Alex Hudson]

On Tue, 2007-06-19 at 14:24 +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Having read about the libc5 fork of glibc in Rick Moen's "Fear of Forking"
> essay, I went looking for more info about this fork since it seems to have
> healed so well that no one ever talks about it anymore.

I still have machines which run it :)

You might find this interview interesting:

http://linuxgazette.net/issue32/tag_libc5.html

I remember another one, but can't find it I'm afraid.

Cheers,

Alex.

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion