9 ms·

While I don't disagree with some of the pain you describe, you conveniently gloss over the fact that gnu developed a system that worked, and then made it free t

by b5n 29d ago

While I don't disagree with some of the pain you describe, you conveniently gloss over the fact that gnu developed a system that worked, and then made it free to everyone to consult and use.

okanat 29d ago
BSD also did it. They did it better. Maybe more modern but AOSP also did it but at a different level of binary: instead of ELF, using compiled Java bytecode archives.
- lmz 29d ago
  The root cause is alternative libc implementations. Are BSD syscalls considered stable? I remember Go moving to use libc on OpenBSD. Solaris also has the libc as the stable interface. Linux kernel is an outlier here guaranteeing stable syscalls but you wanting to use another libc is not Glibc's problem.
  - account42 29d ago
    Yeah it's not Linux specific but rather true for most Unix systems that libc == base system interface library.
    - pjmlp 29d ago
      Except the other UNIX systems, starting with the original one, evolved from only having static linking to various ways to connect libraries and applications.