Hacker News Reader

Bugginess of one particular implementation (and let's be fair here -- most of the stuff in glibc is quite ugly and hacky, a direct consequence of the bazaar model) has nothing to do with dynamic linking. Both PAM and NSS have been used successfully in a dozen of other operating systems for decades, and that's dynamic linking that facilitated these technologies.

Are you arguing that glibc code quality will magically go up if they abandon dynamic linking?

View on HN

I wasn't arguing against dynamic linking, but the parent poster's fervor at attacking its critics, and their poor example of a supposedly great thing it facilitated.

I'm not sure if you can blame glibc on bazaar practices. musl and glibc both have similar, BFDL-driven development models (well, glibc did until Drepper got booted, at least) yet musl has far better curation and attentiveness than glibc.

PAM and NSS have always been controversial (though PAM particularly) and better ways have been both developed and proposed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com