Content deleted Content added
Line 119:
::::::::: Any chances, please, for clarifying a bit why do you find the [http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/elf/elf.pdf#page=3 ELF specification] to be an unreliable source? — [[User:Dsimic|Dsimic]] ([[User talk:Dsimic#nobold|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Dsimic|contribs]]) 14:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::I mentioned already why this ELF document is not trustworthy: It is a well known fact that Sun Microsystems was at least a co-developer of the ELF format, even if we do not regard the talk from Bill Joy at the Sun User Group conference in 1988. Well, the debug format associated with ELF is called DWARF and AT&T would not use such names (see e.g. the two incidents with SVr4 enforced by AT&T: AT&T forced Sun to rename the kernel internal function as_hole() to as_gap() and AT&T removed the following troff comment from the tunefs man page:
.\" Take this out and a Unix Demon will dog your steps from now until
.\" the time_t's wrap around.
::::::::::just before the text:
You can tune a file system, but you can't tune a fish.
::::::::::So you see that there is no humor inside AT&T that would make a name like DAWRF a plausible AT&T idea next to "ELF". Let me repeat the other argument as well: Why should a document like the ELF document in question be trustworthy if it mentions all companies but Sun Microsystems? [[User:Schily|Schily]] ([[User talk:Schily|talk]]) 18:27, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
| |||