Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 00:12:06 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com>, Christopher Masto <chris@netmonger.net>, FreeBSD Hackers <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Mandatory locking? Message-ID: <37C407C6.D6FB6532@newsguy.com> References: <19990823231130.A16133@netmonger.net> <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908232313540.49952-100000@picnic.mat.net> <19990823232726.B16133@netmonger.net> <37C2B148.60FB81FA@newsguy.com> <37C3890B.7AD1E44F@softweyr.com> <19990825155207.Q83273@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey wrote: > > On Wednesday, 25 August 1999 at 0:11:23 -0600, Wes Peters wrote: > > "Daniel C. Sobral" wrote: > >> > >> Christopher Masto wrote: > >>> > >>> I don't see the use for it. > >> > >> :-) > >> > >> The thing is SO obviously flawed, that I wonder how many marketoid > >> drones it took to make sensible people think it is actually useful. > >> :-) > > > > And how many programmers with nearly (or more than) two decades of UNIX > > experience it takes to convince someone it really is useful. > > I must say, I'm really amazed at some of the opinions that have been > voiced in this thread. Of course, that's all they are, and they show > the origins of their owners. > > Any system with multiple concurrent accesses requires locking. Only > UNIX uses advisory locking. It almost does the job, so nobody has > tried to fix things. But that doesn't make it right. Well, now, that message of mine quoted above was intended to lighten up the mood. I'spose so was Wes' message. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org - Come on. - Where are we going? - To get what you came for. - What's that? - Me. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?37C407C6.D6FB6532>