Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!uuneo!sugar!peter From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: A challenge to all true hackers: objects and types Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900 Date: Sun, 28 Mar 1993 18:07:28 GMT Message-ID: <C4M2CH.1Cp@sugar.neosoft.com> References: <ARNEJ.93Mar24113744@chanur.imf.unit.no> <C4FEo2.8no@sugar.neosoft.com> <1993Mar27.081223.2547@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Lines: 19 In article <1993Mar27.081223.2547@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes: > As I pointed out in the previous post, this is based on the bad assumption > that a process may modify it's own environment or that of it's parent, both > of which are not allowed. A process may well modify its own environment. Whether that's "allowed" or not, it's possible. I've done it (mostly to reclaim space on PDP-11 versions of software, where the K or so in the environment was a significant amount of the available BSS), and I'm sure other people have too. > An "environmnet that isn't" is functionally equivalent to process or system > logical names (ala VMS), depending on implementation. And just because VMS does it you reject it? It's VERY useful under OpenNET. -- Peter da Silva. <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. `-_-' Oletko halannut suttasi tänään? 'U` Tarjoilija, tämä ateria elää vielä.