Date: Tue, 8 Jul 1997 01:21:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Howard Lew <hlew@www2.shoppersnet.com> To: Joerg Wunsch <joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: no SYSVSHM in GENERIC now.. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970708011929.21586B-100000@www2.shoppersnet.com> In-Reply-To: <19970708091450.QL25215@uriah.heep.sax.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 8 Jul 1997, J Wunsch wrote: > As Bruce Evans wrote: > > > >I can't remember - why did we take it out? > > > > We never had them, except in in a forgotten branch :-). > > ...where jkh added them. jkh seems to operate a lot on forgotten > branches, and afterwards wonders why the bits didn't wander into the > HEAD theirselves. :) > > But Jordan, don't add SYSVMSG, almost nobody uses them. They are > really non-generic in a world that can use sockets to pass messages. > (I know that there are differences, but nevertheless, they are not in > wide use.) > > Even SYSVSEM is arguable, i think the only `canned' application that > uses them is PEX. (Who uses PEX, anyway? :) > Err uh... will taking this out prevent some programs from running properly? It will still be there as an option for us to add in our kernel if we need it right? > -- > cheers, J"org > > joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE > Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shoppers Network (Support) AMD K5/K6s, Cyrix 6x86, Intel Pentiums/Pro Phone: (415) 759-8584 Email: howard@shoppersnet.com ==============================> WWW - http://www.shoppersnet.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970708011929.21586B-100000>