Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gatech!news.byu.edu!cwis.isu.edu!u.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Subject: Re: Notes on the *new* FreeBSD V1.1 VM system Date: 4 Mar 1994 05:48:39 GMT Organization: Weber State University, Ogden, UT Lines: 23 Message-ID: <2l6i3n$rco@u.cc.utah.edu> References: <2l0b06$2qi@GRAPEVINE.LCS.MIT.EDU> <2l1ov4$m7o@germany.eu.net> <2l2mmf$me9@GRAPEVINE.LCS.MIT.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.weber.edu In article <2l2mmf$me9@GRAPEVINE.LCS.MIT.EDU> wollman@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) writes: >In all seriousness, a POSIX-compliant operating system MUST NOT >require programs to call non-POSIX functions in order to operate >correctly according to the standard. Therefore, vfork() isn't a >solution to the problem of `60-Mb process forks in order to exec >/bin/true'. But POSIX is missing many pieces. Like support for file truncation via truncate/ftruncate/fcntl( ..., F_FREESP, ...) (the last is a SVR4ism and more likely to make it into POSIX because of that). POSIX is also missing support for proxy record locking, necessary for the implementation of an NFS lockd. Basically, POSIX is not the end-all, be-all of operating systems that it was supposed to be. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.