Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 4 Jan 1999 00:08:16 -0500 (EST) | From | Todd Graham Lewis <> | Subject | Re: [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/
| |