lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jan]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [OFFTOPIC] Gnumenclature was Re: IBM, was never Re: Linux Kernel
On Sun, 3 Jan 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote:

> In <199901030911.BAA21014@bitmover.com> Larry McVoy (lm@bitmover.com) wrote:
>
> > Such as? The only substantial chunk is gcc and that isn't part of the
> > operating system.
>
> Such as Libc. I'm NEVER seen ANY Linux distribution without some form of libc.
> ALL libc's for Linux are derived from GNU Libc (1 or 2)... For Linux
> developers libc is somewhat even more important then kernel.
(...)
> Libc, derived from GNU Libc (be it libc4, libc5 or glibc2) is
> inevitable in Linux world...

Unless you want to use the Berkeley libc, which is unencumbered and perfectly
suitable for use under Linux.

> > Yeah, right. Have you actually tried this for any real application?
> > Sure, it's true for simple stuff but it is far from true for anything
> > real.
>
> Yes, there ARE differences between glibc-based Hurd and glibc-based Linux
> (thus GNU/Linux, not just GNU :-), but glibc-based Linux is close to
> glibc-based Hurd then to libc5-based Linux (from application developer
> viewpoint that is).

With the slight exception that both Linuxes are useful systems.

--
Todd Graham Lewis tlewis@mindspring.net (800) 719-4664, x2804

"It's still ludicrous that nobody's ever made a run at us by making UNIX
a popular platform on PCs. It's almost too late now." -- Steve Balmer
"It is too late." -- Bill Gates _Newsweek_, 6/23/97, p. 82


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:49    [W:0.072 / U:0.228 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site