> The kernel may be the core of a Linux system, but neither users nor applications deal with the kernel directly.<p>The amount of complexity in a modern libc, glibc in particular, is mind-boggling.<p>One thing I love about Go is that it completely bypasses even libc, the Go runtime and stdlib use syscalls directly(well, except on Windows, for obvious reasons), in a way a Go program is "closer to the metal" than a C program.
I think the news here should be "lots of normal people are still surprised that the FOSS movement is littered with uncooperative sperglords everywhere you look".<p>The deeper and more complex a project, the higher my expectation for this type of behavior. I imagine a big venn diagram of "manages ultra-complex software in use by millions" and "social skills". Linus, of course, being the shining counterexample.<p>Seriously though, anyone familiar with FOSS projects should be entirely unsurprised by this. If you think I'm joking, go read some of Stallman's rants or peruse esr's "how to have sex" faq.
These links (not mine) may help explain a lot to those who may be unfamiliar with Ulrich: <a href="http://urchin.earth.li/~twic/Ulrich_Drepper_Is_A_.html" rel="nofollow">http://urchin.earth.li/~twic/Ulrich_Drepper_Is_A_.html</a>
Is eglibc likely to merge into glibc?<p>I was under the impression that one of the reasons Debian moved from glibc to eglibc was friction with the project maintainer.
"Also significant is the fact that Ulrich left Red Hat in September, 2010; ...he is now VP, Technology Division at Goldman Sachs."<p>For me this is the punch line to the story. I wonder how he's liking wearing a shirt and tie to the office.