On Thu, Jul 22, 1999 at 10:58:59PM -0700, John Polstra wrote:
> In article <19990722111605.c49...@palmerharvey.co.uk>,
> Dominic Mitchell <dom.mitch...@palmerharvey.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 1999 at 04:59:59PM +0700, Max Khon wrote:
> > >
> > > PAM is also "using masses of weird shared objects" but nevertheless it's
> > > quite usable
> >
> > By statically linked binaries?
>
> Our PAM implementation works for static binaries too. See the
> sources for the gory details. Basically it creates a library that
> includes all the possible modules, and selects the right one at
> runtime. There's some linker set magic involved.
Ooh! Cunning!
> Concerning "masses of weird shared objects," you'd really better get
> used to it. It was the wave of the future 10 years ago. It's not
> going away. Dynamic linking provides flexibility and modularity that
> you just can't get from static linking.
Very right. I didn't say it was a bad thing, just confused me for a
while when I first saw it...
However, I still (personally) prefer the idea of a filesystem
interface...
--
Dom Mitchell -- Palmer & Harvey McLane -- Unix Systems Administrator
In Mountain View did Larry Wall
Sedately launch a quiet plea:
That DOS, the ancient system, shall
On boxes pleasureless to all
Run Perl though lack they C.
--
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
**********************************************************************
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
