Re: Re: [UnixOS2] libc

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 10:04:56AM +0400, nickk wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2003 13:43:39 +0200, Holger Veit wrote:
> 
> >Do you want an improvement? YES or NO?
> 
> Well, we all DID want an improvement for several years. But now all we have is a bitching bettween os/2 programmers and no other libc besides old 
> EMX. I dont beleive that we will ever have smth better :(

This brings it close to the point. Besides, this thread is again starting to
shift, in a similar way as many other threads, namely on the issue of
"what make should we use?" This comes up and up again, without any result
at all. Guys, this is a non-debate actually, which is only wasting time
and already has wasted very long time. There is already some make.exe which
apparently does quite well with automake and also with Imake. This one
should be in the UnixOS2 archive, so there is no reason that not everyone
can obtain it and use it. This versioning mess (only the latest greatest
number is the best - neglecting that each version is ported again to OS/2
resulting in new "features" and bugs) is really not necessary.

I think the whole problem we have over the years is that noone really wants 
to adopt any responsibility any more: responsibility for some major
design decision like the build system, even the name of a successor library,
the question of compatibility (which to me is the strongest indicator
of -negative- conservativism: it shoud be better, but never touch anything 
that might break antediluvian code), and now, even about the decision,
whether make-3.76.1 or 3.77.2 or 3.79.3.141592653589.... is appropriate.
Maybe we should dig deeper into the make source code - there are lots
of lines of code (and even more worthwhile: lines of comment) we could
debate about (NOT!). This is meanwhile starting to become (philo-)sophism,
not programming.

I have more than once in the mailinglist and elsewhere recommended to
"just do it" (Cpt Picard: Engage) if there is some design decision.
I am tired to lead such decisions (have done it for long with XFree86/OS2);
you should be clear about the fact that this is a community effort.

I am not surprised that now Innotek wants to come out with a gcc environment -
they *have* made some design decisions which now, according to some rumour,
don't look too promising for Unix compatibility. It was Innotek's good right
to decide this; they are paying the port after all, and they probably had
some reasons to make their libc the way it is going to be. The good reasons
to make it (likely) different are here with us as well, yet noone so far
stepped forward to decide: this is for now the way to go (well: few prominent
and highly appreciable exceptions: libemu and symlinks, for instance).

You (as the remaining community) have IMHO still several choices left:
- continue to use EMX with all its deficiencies and problems, and never
  get a satisfactory Unix environment
- hope for Innotek's libc, maybe it is more usable (rumour says no, but
  I have yet to see any line of code before I get a definite opinion)
- finally leave all the philosophical blurb behind and MAKE UNIXOS2
- Wait for Godot

Holger
 

 




> 
> _______________________________________________
> Emx mailing list
> Emx-yH06IGssc98i5CQI31g/[email protected]
> http://xfreeos2.dyndns.org/mailman/listinfo/emx