On 19-Aug-08, at 3:13 PM, Aaron J. Grier wrote:
To me it is just as sad that NetBSD, in its role as as a binary-only vendor, would like to take the same attitude that Sun and Apple and Microsoft have done and also force everyone providing source-based software to those using those binary-only distributions to be totally locked into the "everything must be dynamic all the time" mindset.NetBSD isn't a binary only vendor. claiming so is a straw-man argument.
I would have thought that the phrase "in its role as a binary-only vendor" was abundantly clear and could not be mis-interpreted.
It means in its role as a producer of ready-to-run binary distributions. I.e. a role separate from its role as a source code vendor.
the proposal is to stop shipping .a libraries by default. that doesn'tlock anybody into requiring a dynamic runtime.
Clearly it does lock users into requiring a dynamic runtime. I.e. under this proposal users of the binary NetBSD distribution will be required to use a dynamic OS runtime (it will be the only one they have) and they will also be required to create only dynamic runtimes for any applications that they may choose to build and install from source.
The only way a binary NetBSD distribution user will be able to use a static runtime will be if some third party provides it for them.
Perhaps you personally don't care about this, and that's OK, but as I said I think it would be a very sad thing and if it happens I think it will be a clear statement of how NetBSD is actually more interested in marketing perceptions and how it compares itself with big binary-only proprietary OS vendors than it is interested in following the published design goals it has for itself.
Just because some proprietary OS vendors see dynamic-only runtimes as their future and as sufficient for their marketplace doesn't mean its a good thing, and it certainly doesn't mean the open source world should follow blindly in their footsteps.
--
Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc.
<woods%planix.ca@localhost>