Message-ID:	<8D53104ECD0CD211AF4000A0C9D60AE301435A5F@probe-2.acclaim-euro.net>
From:	Shawn Hargreaves <ShawnH AT Probe DOT co DOT uk>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	RE: Hello World and File size
Date:	Mon, 14 Jun 1999 13:12:47 +0100
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Internet Mail Service (5.0.1460.8)
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii writes:
>> I would have said that this was exactly the opposite way 
>> around: Linux development seems to be far less tightly
>> organised than djgpp.
>
> I was talking about core features, not about add-ons.  Think Linux 
> kernel, not application packages.  The features that are or aren't 
> included in core Linux functionality are tightly controlled.

In the kernel, for sure. But this is a single piece of software that
doesn't even use any external libraries. For a functional system you
also need at least a copy of libc, compiler, shell, and often X and 
a GUI toolkit as well. The coordination between these different
components is far less than between djgpp packages.

>> The majority of Linux programs will in fact run on any Unix variant
>
> I don't have any direct experience with Linux, but I do have experience 
> with other flavors of Unix.  I've seen too many cases where a binary 
> carried to another box running the same OS crashed or didn't start 
> because of mismatches in versions of libc.so.

Sorry, I should have been more clear about this: I was talking about 
source level portability. And I quite agree that this would be a
nightmare for djgpp. The way I see it:

- Linux pretty much ignores the issue of binary compatibility, but
still works because most things are distributed as source and compiled
specifically for the target system.

- Windows tried to combine dynamic linking with binary distributions,
and just look how that turned out.

- Most djgpp users would not be happy for everything to be distributed
in source form, therefore it is best for each executable to be a complete,
self contained program.

In other words, we seem to agree with each other :-)

> FWIW, I predict that before Linux becomes much more popular than it is 
> today, it, too, will have to abandon the idea of compiling the kernel 
> for each configuration change.  I think the latest releases already do 
> so.

Yes, with the 2.2 kernel there is very little need to rebuild it,
except for really unusual configurations. And if you get a distribution
CD, you can install a complete set of working programs in binary form.
It is only when you try to upgrade your system, eg. adding new library 
versions or going from the 2.0 to 2.2 kernels, that you have to 
recompile a large portion of your software.


	Shawn Hargreaves.

- Raw text -