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!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!paladin.american.edu!02-newsfeed.univie.ac.at!01-newsfeed.univie.ac.at!voskovec.radio.cz!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.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.32a40b7b@mail.fwi.uva.nl> Date: 3 Dec 1996 12:14:04 +0100 Organization: Sun Microsystems, Netherlands Lines: 51 Distribution: inet Message-ID: <casper.32a40b7b@mail.fwi.uva.nl> References: <32986299.AC7@mail.esrin.esa.it> <casper.32a1813c@mail.fwi.uva.nl> <57v6em$p73@helena.MT.net> <casper.32a3e5ae@mail.fwi.uva.nl> <580sgh$kpi@panix2.panix.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: mail.fwi.uva.nl Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.solaris:91320 comp.unix.bsd.misc:1671 comp.unix.internals:11443 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 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. My argument is best summarized as: We can't do it differently because of binary compatibily, and, oh, there's this hypothetical file corruption problem too. I agree with you that: just making off_t bigger is nicer and cleaner you fail to see that: it really doesn't matter whether you do it in the syscall table or the shared library, you have two different sets of functions anyway The file corruption scenario is real, though, but I would not claim we solved all of it, just the vast majority of that specific case. It is by no means as important as binary compatibility. And with binary compatibility we don't mean just running binries, but using libraries, .o and .so files as well. Hell, if we could get people to recompile their .o files, we'd have changed FILE->_cnt to a different size a long time ago. (Barring the fact that that would break SV ABI compliance, as would changing off_t, but that's a side issue) You've failed to convince me that such compatibility could be gotten in a different, acceptable way. Even stronger, you've failed to put forward even one convincing argument. 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.