> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 1999 01:46:00 +0000
> From: dancer@zeor.simegen.com
>
> Concur, all round. However, we've now had 'vfork() == fork()' being
> generally advertised for some time. I know programmers, therefore
> (many of whom I'd not care to share an office with, but that's
> another thing entirely) who reflexively have used vfork() everywhere
> 'because it's the same as fork, but might be better than fork one
> day'.
>
> Agreed, but that's silly. [snip]
> However, if they use vfork() like fork() in some situation where BSD 4.3
> vfork() would break, on the vague assumption that vfork() will change in
> some way that's better-but-without-any-of-the-limitations-of-old-vfork,
> they're just being stupid, and they deserve everything they get.
>
> Post _big_ warnings. Some things will break. Things that should have been
> written differently to begin with, mind you.
>
> Sigh.... too bad we can't give programmers electric shocks each time
> they pull such wild leaps of illogic.
Agreed. I'm willing to hold an electrode, if it comes to that.
D
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/