From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jul 13 16:44: 9 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (dingo.cdrom.com [204.216.28.145]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A85BC15320 for ; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:44:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Received: from dingo.cdrom.com (localhost.cdrom.com [127.0.0.1]) by dingo.cdrom.com (8.9.3/8.8.8) with ESMTP id QAA01988; Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:40:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@dingo.cdrom.com) Message-Id: <199907132340.QAA01988@dingo.cdrom.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2 2/24/98 To: Jason Thorpe Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Replacement for grep(1) (part 2) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:38:46 PDT." <199907132338.QAA25458@lestat.nas.nasa.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:40:07 -0700 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > On Tue, 13 Jul 1999 16:29:50 -0700 > Mike Smith wrote: > > > You can make the "overcommit or not overcommit" option a switch, but > > the consumers of the system (may) need to change their behaviour as > > well. > > I never said they wouldn't have to. "Making it just a switch" does not imply "must modify other parts of the kernel and userspace to avoid incompatible dysfunction". Since you were setting your argument up _against_ that point, it was reasonable to infer that you were specifically excluding those cases. Please stop trolling; you've demonstrated your total disinterest in contributing anything positive in this conversation; do us a favor and bow out (you can take your toadies with you). -- \\ The mind's the standard \\ Mike Smith \\ of the man. \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ -- Joseph Merrick \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message