From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <775b8d190604181030w76d44f3cn91de790e9269b117@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 03:30:27 +1000 From: "Bruce Ellis" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Install from CD fails In-Reply-To: <3ff8d9adb83198885a3dfa6a02d4e5b4@cat-v.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <775b8d190604180946s5dbd2fb4yd42bc42cc509274c@mail.gmail.com> <3ff8d9adb83198885a3dfa6a02d4e5b4@cat-v.org> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3b058466-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 boyd would take out the machine pistol and wipe out a few pigeons. i know i did when they insisted on terror on my sleep. shared libraries are worse! brucee On 4/19/06, uriel@cat-v.org wrote: > > grafting shared libraries into plan9 will make presto go into a rage. > > I was going to say that the day Plan 9 gets shared libs I would shot > myself. But given how many fans I have in 9fans that might have > motivated someone into actually implementing shard libs. > > So maybe more persuasive is the fact that it would make boyd spin in his > grave until the Earth would end up torn to pieces. > > > that's a great addition to the loader, and relatively easy to implement= . > > I like that idea too, simple and clean, I can't see any downsides. > > uriel > > > P.S.: Unsurprisingly http://kencc.sf.net is nowhere to be seen in the SoC > site either... *sigh* hey, who knows, maybe in a couple of years more > we will have a website and a tarball for kencc! > > > > i think it is important to have an install floppy. or throw out machin= es > > without CD drives. > > > > brucee > > > > On 4/19/06, Charles Forsyth wrote: > >> > There were linkers written, long ago, that would extract only the co= de > >> > from a library that was used by a program, and the binary got pretty > >> > >> we do that in inferno's 5l. richard miller implemented it originally = in 5l > >> but the changes vanished with the business unit and we redid it years = later, > >> and perhaps not in quite the same way (i don't know). > >