stripes@ENG.UMD.EDU ("Stripes ", or Josh, if you must) (02/11/91)
Kee Hinckley said: [...] >This has got to change. OSF has got to get out of this vendor-oriented >view of the world (ISVs don't provide shared libraries, vendors do). >We're shipping with my own version of Motif now because neither 1.1 or >1.1.1 fix all of the bugs or provide the functionality we need. I don't >anticipate this changing anytime in the next year - and I know we're >not the only company in this situation. We can't afford to charge >extra for every copy of the program, and we can't afford the administration >and liability costs of trying to determine which sites we ship to have >a license and which don't. If you ship your own copy of Motif, who are you going to share it with? Or do you have more then one product that uses the same fixed fersion of Motif? If not then a shared lib will be no win over a shared lib (in fact a marginal loss, PIC code is a tiny bit slower then position dependent code). However it still is a long term problem, when Motif becomes bug-free enough to run out of the box, shared libs will be a really big win... -- stripes@eng.umd.edu "Security for Unix is like Josh_Osborne@Real_World,The Multitasking for MS-DOS" "The dyslexic porgramer" - Kevin Lockwood "CNN is the only nuclear capable news network..." - lbruck@eng.umd.edu (Lewis Bruck)
dow@PRESTO.IG.COM (Christopher Dow) (02/11/91)
Here, Here!!! Is there anything we can do to facilitate this? Chris Dow IntelliGenetics Software Engineer 700 East El Camino Real icbmnet: 37 22' 39" N, 122 3' 32" W Mountain View, Ca. 94040 dow@presto.ig.com (415) 962-7320
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (02/12/91)
In article <9102111346.AA17876@twiddle.eng.umd.edu> stripes@ENG.UMD.EDU ("Stripes ", or Josh, if you must) writes: > >Kee Hinckley said: >[...] > >>This has got to change. OSF has got to get out of this vendor-oriented >>view of the world (ISVs don't provide shared libraries, vendors do). > >If you ship your own copy of Motif, who are you going to share it with? Or >do you have more then one product that uses the same fixed fersion of Motif? >If not then a shared lib will be no win over a shared lib (in fact a marginal >loss, PIC code is a tiny bit slower then position dependent code). > Well, my $0.02 worth: We are supplying our (internal) customer with our own Motif based applications, eXclaim, and Island WPD, Motif version. Our own applications number in the dozens, so shared libraries are a must. We're using three screens on a Sun SparcServer, the users will be running the programs simultaneously. It would be a big plus if eXclaim and Island WPD used the shared libraries we've built for our own applications. For one thing, it would ensure that the version of Motif that's being used is the latest, greatest, and most bug free that there is, which is always going to be suspect when it's statically linked to the application! -- Kaleb Keithley kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov As of right now, I'm in charge here now... Alexander Haig. Voodoo Economics, that's what it is, voodoo economics. George Bush
anon@ZIP.EECS.UMICH.EDU (02/13/91)
When is this stone-age luddite attitude of OSF going to change? If Motif were the last step of a thousand mile journey to GUI nirvana, there may be some justification in overcharging and overbearing. As it stands now, it is just another run-of-the-mill mediocre and cumbersome system. The more hassle OSF gives developers, the less those developers are willing to settle for the merchandise they are getting for their money. Furthermore, if anyone is concerned about what bug-ridden shared library version of Motif their applications will be running against, they always have the option of statically linking with their own bug-ridden version of Motif. Get real, OSF. ...anon... anon@eecs.umich.edu
nazgul@alfalfa.com (Kee Hinckley) (02/13/91)
> Do you mean the same app run more then once (like 2 xterms each for 8 people), > or some people running XFOO1.0 and a few more running XFOO1.2, and some > running the beta of XFOO2.0? In the first case everyone will share the memmory > of the xterm code. Does that work on most systems? If so then I can at least use it to hold off the customer requests, although in the long run that's not enough.
anon@ZIP.EECS.UMICH.EDU (02/13/91)
> > running the beta of XFOO2.0? In the first case everyone will share the memmory > > of the xterm code. >Does that work on most systems? If so then I can at least use it to hold >off the customer requests, although in the long run that's not enough. An option on ld can be used to make the text of an object file shareable among processes. From the ld manpage on Ultrix: -n Arrange (by giving the output file a 0410 "magic number") that when the output file is executed, the text portion is read-only and shared among all users executing the file, an NMAGIC file. This involves moving the data areas up to the first possible pagesize byte boundary following the end of the text. For programs not using shared libraries, this may help alleviate thrashing. ...anon... anon@eecs.umich.edu
db@sunbim.be (Danny Backx) (02/18/91)
> > OSF has to release the licsensing restrictions on shared libraries. > > OSF *definitely* has to release the licsensing restrictions on shared > libraries. If anyone else on the net feels strong enough about Kee's > motion, please second. > > -kam I second. We run several commercial packages, all statically linked. This really eats our memory... Danny Backx System Engineer, BIM Networks E-Mail: db@sunbim.be (or uunet!mcsun!ub4b!sunbim!db) Telephone: +32(2)759.59.25 Fax : +32(2)759.47.95 Postal Mail : Danny Backx BIM Kwikstraat 4 3078 Everberg Belgium