That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible
Posted May 21, 2009 12:50 UTC (Thu) by liljencrantz
In reply to: That's silly. You can have strlcat() and strlcpy(), yet be compatible
Parent article: EGLIBC: Not a fork, but a glibc distribution
Chain of events, probably not chronological, but illustrative:
- Drepper co-creates a much quicker, Posix-compliant threading implementation, which significantly helps Linux performance of e.g. MySQL and increases adoption of LAMP stack.
- Somebody with way too much time on their hands thinks it would be hillarious to add a funciton to make a random anagram of a string to glibc as a joke and gets it snuck into the codebase, where it becomes part of the stable API and has to be supported by somebody else. Forever.
- Drepper significantly optimizes the glibc footprint and helps out with defining the posix libc specification.
- Sombody else with even more time on their hands figures the useless anagram function isn't completely random and sends a broken patch.
- Drepper writes the excellent «What every programmer should know about memory», published on LWN and then given away for free.
- Sombody else with even more time on their hands figures the useless patch to the useless anagram function isn't completely random and sends yet another patch.
- Drepper doesn't want to include the useless anagram patches because he feels other tasks (like, you know... anything that isn't completely useless navel-gazing wankery) are more pressing because nobody uses strfry. On the account of it being a joke. Not a single use of strfry on my Ubuntu system.
- People decide Drepper is a pain to work with because he drops important patches and should preferably be kicked out of the open source community.
to post comments)