Re: history of libc

Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo (jake@nodomainname.net)
Wed, 25 Nov 1998 08:22:48 -0800 (PST)

Well, since > 90% of all programs for Linux are written in C (or a
language that itself is written in C, i.e. perl), they depend on libc
being there, so Linux has had some sort of libc since the beginning. It
appears that glibc 1.0 was released in 1992, while Linux began in 1991, so
I'm guessing that there was some other libc (minix?) before that. Also,
I'm not sure that libc5 was GNU libc, or something else. Usually when
people refer to GNU libc, they mean glibc2 (aka libc6).

On Tue, 24 Nov 1998, Rick Hohensee wrote:

> When did Linux get a libc? Has it always been a GNU libc?
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

+-----------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Jakob 'sparky' Kaivo | jake@nodomainname.net |
| NoDomainName Networks | http://www.nodomainname.net |
| AtDot E-mail Services | http://www.atdot.org |
+-----------------------------+--------------------------------+

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM d- s: a--- C++++$ UL++++$ P+++ L+++ E--- W++ N++ o k? !w--- O- M+ V
PS--- PE+ Y PGP+ t+@ 5 X- R !tv b+ DI++ D++ G++ e h++ r++ y-
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/