From xemacs-m  Mon Jul  7 14:54:12 1997
Received: from firewall2.Lehman.COM (firewall.Lehman.COM [192.147.65.67])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA07063
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 14:54:10 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from smap@localhost) by firewall2.Lehman.COM (8.8.5/8.6.12) id PAA10188; Mon, 7 Jul 1997 15:54:06 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from unknown(146.127.39.20) by firewall2 via smap (V1.3)
	id tmp010109; Mon Jul  7 15:53:53 1997
Received: from cfdev1172.lehman.com by relay.lehman.com (4.1/LB-0.6)
	id AA16517; Mon, 7 Jul 97 15:53:51 EDT
Received: from localhost by cfdev1172.lehman.com (4.1/Lehman Bros. V1.6)
	id AA16097; Mon, 7 Jul 97 15:00:51 EDT
Message-Id: <9707071900.AA16097@cfdev1172.lehman.com>
Reply-To: Rick Campbell <rickc@lehman.com>
X-Windows: Foiled again.
Organization: Lehman Brothers Inc.
From: Rick Campbell <rickc@lehman.com>
To: georgn@canada.sun.com
Cc: XEmacs Beta List <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: Solaris dynamics? 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 04 Jul 1997 10:56:16 EDT."
             <199707041456.KAA05689@verve.canada.sun.com> 
X-Pgp-Version: 2.6.2
X-Pgp-Signed: iQCVAwUBM8E8xltTztlqB385AQGUHAP/Tt/OPTkhQNkhfjEYA9dF0DD/rqXdbm/M
	      OyCi1H+0735s00uYpglgdnUcy2FBN95cMUdGtd5KyyXbPjXRnI7PwuzFigJGDS+T
	      inPbs309G6VDBGVdkWi9xnvwfxtVv49/XaAL/tR2HsKlqzGLBKOcJm2aF3i9m9YP
	      FIPw3Pcb57g=
	      =Exof
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 1997 15:00:33 -0400
Sender: rickc@lehman.com

    Date: Fri, 4 Jul 1997 10:56:16 -0400
    From: Georg Nikodym <georgn@canada.sun.com>

Sorry for not replying earlier -- I replies to me sooner if they're
sent to me as well as the list.
    
    An example.  /usr/lib/libsocket.so.1are . . . .

It's a good example, but an example of how something has been used
incorrectly is not really an argument for disallowing anyone from
using it at all.
    
    The root problem is that some applications break with each release of
    the system software.  

And I suspect that we can both agree that this will continue to happen
whether or not Sun prevents me from linking statically.
    
     RC> When you make it easier, it will happen more,
     RC> i. e. it sure the hell is Sun's fault.
    
    Ahh, the "make more guns, more people will shoot themselves" argument.

In some sense, I suppose.  But despite having made this point, my
primary concern remains that Sun is actively trying to make static
linking impossible.  Even though I think that it's a bad idea, I
really don't have a problem with them selecting whatever defaults they
choose -- as long as they don't lock out my options.
    
     RC> Anyway, my point was that Martin's choice of ``the oldest OS
     RC> version around'' isn't really all that old.
    
    It shipped in very early 94.  Three and a half years is plenty old in
    this business.

I think this reflects a very miopic point of view.  Within `the
business', there are contexts in which it's a long time, and others in
which it's not at all.

     RC> If Sun would simply continue to allow what is known to work, I
     RC> would not be faulting them.  Period.
    
    What is "known to work", unfortunately does not.

Perhaps not in all cases, but overall, it produces more robust
executables far more often -- certainly often enough that it's a valid
option for a developer to select.
    
     RC> Are we a big company with big customers still using Lemacs 19.4?
     RC> I thought not.
    
    No but we break people's .emacs files every release and I for one have 
    given up trying to keep the 30 XEmacs users here current and happy.

Right.  But again, we're not a big company with big customers . . . .

			Rick

