Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!EU.net!sun4nl!fwi.uva.nl!not-for-mail From: casper@fwi.uva.nl (Casper H.S. Dik) Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: Solaris 2.6 Supersedes: <cancel.casper.32a3e5ae@mail.fwi.uva.nl> Date: 3 Dec 1996 09:32:47 +0100 Organization: Sun Microsystems, Netherlands Lines: 41 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <casper.32a3e5ae@mail.fwi.uva.nl> References: <32986299.AC7@mail.esrin.esa.it> <casper.329c06bc@mail.fwi.uva.nl> <57res5$j7k@panix2.panix.com> <casper.32a1813c@mail.fwi.uva.nl> <57v6em$p73@helena.MT.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail.fwi.uva.nl Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.solaris:91241 comp.unix.bsd.misc:1663 comp.unix.internals:11432 nate@see.my.signature (Nate Williams) writes: >You've never used Informix then, one of the big three. I re-compile my >application all the time, but my Informix db software still uses the >same front-end it always used. Do your pass a file descriptor to the open database around? That was what I was referring to. >In any case, rather than listening to the arguement whey 4.4Lites >implementation is better than the one Sun is using, you are ignoring it >and instead taking cheap shots at things like 'understanding installed >software', etc.. Heck, in your above statement you've shown that you >don't understand 'installed software base' since a *huge* DB vendor does >something you claim nobody does. I don't think you read correctly what I wrote. Or does informaix really pass open filedescriptors to teh database around from frontend to backend and/or vice verssa? >You've consistantly failed to show that Suns approach is better, and many >people have shown why the 4.4BSD approach *IS*. Either keep your arguements >purely technical or purely political, but don't apply different rules to Sun >than you do to CSRG. I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Sun/Large file API Summit's approach is better in the light of binary compatibilty and a large installed base. Only BSD bigots believe differently. I'm not saying that changing off_t to 64 bits and having to recompile everything isn't a cleaner solution. I'm saying it's not a solution we can sell. CSRG had the luxury of not having an installed base. Casper -- Casper Dik - Sun Microsystems - via my guest account at the University of Amsterdam. My work e-mail address is: Casper.Dik@Holland.Sun.COM Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may be fiction rather than truth.