[oclug] Thoughts on "Extensions" (Or, is Embrace and Extend
really all that bad?)
lists at l8r.net
Fri Jan 11 10:50:27 EST 2008
Unfortunately though, Microsoft has added those features to purposefully
lock competition out. Further, many of those features have been
implemented to _replace_ existing, usable features without adding any
value of functionality.
In short, Microsoft's embrace, extend and extinguish:
(you can find thousands of other examples)
is well known, well documented, proven to be malign in nature and
intent, and concrete fact.
While the GNU lads have apparently also added functionality outside of
POSIX standards, from your paste below, the major difference is that they
have not patented that, or otherwise restricted others from implementing
it. They are also not using it to destroy their 'competition'.
This is a left field comparison Jon, even for you.
On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 10:21:30 -0500 (EST)
"Jon Earle" <je_oclug at kronos.honk.org> wrote:
> Was poking around a manpage this AM and came across:
> GNU EXTENSIONS
> Glibc adds two functions not described by POSIX, with prototypes
> And this got me thinking. Why is it okay, acceptable and absolutely
> never mentioned when GNU embraces a standard (POSIX) and extends it with
> new functionality? Yet, when Microsoft does the same, they are
> castigated as being in cahoots with the devil (of whatever religion in
> which you choose, or not, to believe).
> There is no difference whatsoever between the GNU community adding new
> features to standards and corporations doing the same. We modify code
> and extend capabilities because we want a new feature, an old feature is
> lacking, we simply want to tinker... and a whole myriad of other
> strange, not-so-strange and perfectly valid reasons. Corporations do
> the same for much the same reason, although they also have a business
> reason for adding new capabilities and working code into a form that is
> suitable for their projects.
> Strictly speaking, a program written to use GNU extensions is no longer
> compliant to any given standard (other than what GNU has written down in
> an info document). If you were to compile a program with strict POSIX
> checking, for example, it would fail. Just as if you were to compile a
> Windows program with Microsoft extensions in a strictly POSIX
> environment, it too would fail.
> And I'm sure most of our programs would fail if compiled in a strict,
> standard C environment.
> I think there has been a lot of mud-slinging directed against Microsoft
> and the more I consider it, the more I see that much of that mud should
> be directed back at the GNU community for doing precisely that which
> they railed against.
> Very much the case of "don't throw stones if you live in a glass house".
More information about the OCLUG