[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140417041800.GL26358@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 00:18:01 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: New domain!
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 09:10:32PM +0100, Laurent Bercot wrote:
> >- Using musl.libc.org subdomain as either the main website or a
> > redirect to the main website on the existing domain.
>
> Sounds like a given.
> I find musl-libc.org redirecting to musl.libc.org more elegant
> than the other way around, but YMMV.
I agree, but that takes a little bit of work transitioning links and
getting search engines to recognize the move, and it's been a long
time since I've done such a move so I have to figure out how it works
again.
> >- Or just being pretentious like the kernel folks (think kernel.org)
> > and having libc.org be the musl site. ;-)
>
> So tempting. What can we do to tempt you even more ?
I think it's more just a matter of the practical pros and cons, and
one issue is establishing name recognition. musl.libc.org establishes
name recognition for musl and plain libc.org or www.libc.org doesn't.
So I'm leaning towards an approach that uses them in conjunction with
musl.libc.org being the musl site and libc.org being something that's
not misrepresented as fully independent of musl, but that's also more
general.
> >- Revamped libc comparison with more rigorous results, more libcs
> > compared. (This is an existing project idea, but new domain is a
> > good place to put it.)
>
> That sounds good too, but don't you think people will question the
> objectivity of libc.org comparisons if the domain belongs to musl
> authors ? The current comparison on musl-libc.org is *expected* to
> be biased, even if it is not.
> Sigh. Managing appearances is hard.
I think it's already stated that the main window for bias is in the
choices of what aspects are important to compare. (Note: This same
principle applies to basically everything: news, surveys, academic
research, fiction, etc.; the choice of what story to tell is the
biggest bias of all.) Once that's understood, I don't think there's a
lot of remaining question of bias. Most of the items are either
factual and easily verifiable/falsifiable, or quantitative
measurements.
For the revamp though I think it would be nice to put some more effort
into reducing bias in the choice of what to compare. I'm not sure if
it would make sense to ask glibc and/or uclibc to suggest additions
but that would at least be one thought for how to do it.
> >- Information on standards, platform ABIs, etc.
> >- Browsable 3p man pages.
> >- Why ppl should care about libc, standards and interoperability, why
> > existence of multiple implementations of any important library is a
> > good thing, etc.
>
> I would love all of those. I might even contribute if I get some
> free time by way of divine intervention.
Another one to add: why C is important and has not just modern
relevance but has concrete positive aspects that other languages fail
to duplicate that makes it basically the only language for systems
programming, etc.
> >Further ideas or discussion of the existing ones is welcome here.
>
> e-mail addresses, of course !
> Please can I have ska@...c.org, please please pretty please ?
> I'll draw you a kitty. Or contribute something if I can find something
> I'm more knowledgeable about than you guys.
You're the second to request this. It depends on some mail server
setup and thinking through which systems should be responsible for
having mail going thru them, but it's something I hope to add before
too long.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
