[lkml]   [1999]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [OFFTOPIC]: MS Porting Office to Linux?
    On Mar 12, Alex Buell wrote:

    > On 12 Mar 1999, david parsons wrote:
    > > That's not a SO problem. That's a glibc problem.
    > No it's not. It's a SO problem. It relies on features in glibc-2.0.7 which
    > are not present in glibc-2.1. The glibc boys ('n gals) assures me that if
    > they did not do that, *and* did it right, there would not have been any
    > problems installing SO on a glibc-2.1 system. And as such, SO developers
    > _are_ a bunch of lamers. The majority of glibc binaries don't have such
    > problems because they don't go right into the glibc internals.

    any facts and details ? just a "it's not our fault" is not much evidence (on any side).

    please keep in mind when SO 5.0 was released! at least at that time
    glibc 2.0 and pre-2.1 have been so full of compatibility problems
    that I believe the SO (Netscape, Applix, Orcale, ...) boys
    that there was no chance not using glibc 2.0.7.

    anyway, what has to be taken care of to use glibc 2.0 to build 2.1-proof
    applications ? are there any docs, FAQs, hints, ... ?

    All SCSI disks will from now on ___ _____
    be required to send an email notice 0--,| /OOOOOOO\
    24 hours prior to complete hardware failure! <_/ / /OOOOOOOOOOO\
    Harald Koenig, \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
    Inst.f.Theoret.Astrophysik // / \\ \ ^^^^^ ^^^^^

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:50    [W:0.039 / U:41.056 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site