Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!metro!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.erols.net!panix!news.panix.com!not-for-mail From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Newsgroups: comp.unix.solaris,comp.unix.bsd.misc,comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: Solaris 2.6 Date: 3 Dec 1996 06:31:09 -0500 Organization: Panix Lines: 47 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <58131t$min@panix2.panix.com> References: <32986299.AC7@mail.esrin.esa.it> <casper.32a3e5ae@mail.fwi.uva.nl> <580sgh$kpi@panix2.panix.com> <casper.32a40b7b@mail.fwi.uva.nl> Reply-To: tls@rek.tjls.com NNTP-Posting-Host: panix2.panix.com Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.solaris:91301 comp.unix.bsd.misc:1670 comp.unix.internals:11441 In article <casper.32a40b7b@mail.fwi.uva.nl>, Casper H.S. Dik <casper@fwi.uva.nl> wrote: >tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) writes: > >>And this after hand-waving away the...slight problem...with the previous >>*unqualified* claim that the Sun approace "prevented" file corruption, yet! > >>I give up. Like I said, you folks suffer from inpenetrable NIH. > > > > >You have *never* addressed teh binary compatibility issue I raised >other than some hadnwaving "oh, just recompile everything". You put "oh, just recompile everything" in quotes, and yet neither I nor anyone else in this discussion has, in fact, offered that suggestion. Why are you implying that I did so? I do not -- in fact, I offered examples of operating systems which have used an alternative solution, notably SCO -- but I'm entirely sick of discussing it with you, because you keep making things up and acting as if I'd said them, which is patently false. Think how you're making Sun look by doing this; it's not like it isn't obvious to everyone else reading, too! >You have not argued against it so I assume you agree with me there. > >That's why I call you a "BSD bigot", you don't argue the important points >I put forward but argue the lesser important file corruption argument. [snip] The "lesser important" file corruption argument? About ten posts ago you claimed that avoiding file corruption was the "one constraint" by which Sun chose its implementation. You keep changing your argument so that you can claim that nobody's addressing your (latest) points! Sigh... now I really do give up. I don't appreciate your snipping my text to fit your argument, either, as usual with no indication that you've done so. Who's the handwaving bigot here? Oh -- and by the way, I'm still waiting for you to prove _anything_ in this discussion "beyond the shadow of a doubt". I know _I_ haven't, but then again, I've never claimed to. -- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM Stumbling drunk in the railyard looking for God: http://www.panix.com/~tls/