Prev: Makefile picked by make
Next: EFBIG and determination of max file, et al.
From: Rainer Weikusat on 16 May 2010 12:34
gazelle(a)shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:

[...]

> I wonder why they do it that way at all. Many authors have noted that
> the whole Unix way of doing process creation - the idea of creating two
> identical processes when such is wasted in 99% of cases - is a quirk.

Indeed. Also, many authors have noticed that there is but one good in
heaven whose name is Allah and all kinds of other 'quirky' dogmatic
assertions about things they happen to believe in for some reason.
Unsurprisingly, somebody who has absolutely no idea what purpose fork
could serve never understands why it is useful. We have, I think,
already discussed this in great length and continuing to argue about
this is unlikely to produce any useful result. So, could you perhaps
have the kindness to continue your preaching in
alt.religion.bill.our.saviours or some other, suitable group intended
to discuss religious convictions?
From: Rainer Weikusat on 16 May 2010 12:54
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> writes:

[...]

> or some other, suitable group intended to discuss religious convictions?

As an added teaser:

chids -u $RUNAS chdir $DIR daemon $JBOSS_HOME/bin/run.sh -b 127.0.0.1

That's a real-world invocation of the 'JBoss application server'
comprised of invoking three different tools which manipulate various
parts of the environment of the process used to execute them, the
final one containing a fork, followed by creating a 'daemon process'
environment before exec'ing the actual server start script which is
blissfully unaware of all this.

Gratis history lesson: Once upon a time in the past, Unics consisted
of two processes each serving one of the two terminals attached to the
system. These processes ran a program called 'the shell' which (among
other things) provided a facility for executing another program
residing in some disk file upon a user request. Soon, someone had the
idea that a notion of 'background jobs' could be very useful and
hence, the system was extended to not only be capable of executing a
new program in an existing process, but also to continue executing a
particular program in a new process. For instance, the shell, whose
existing 'execute a program file' facility could then be used to start
a new program in a background process.
From: Kenny McCormack on 16 May 2010 13:05
In article <87mxvzajql.fsf(a)fever.mssgmbh.com>,
Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> really didn't do himself any
favors by ranting:
>gazelle(a)shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>
>[...]
>
>> I wonder why they do it that way at all. Many authors have noted that
>> the whole Unix way of doing process creation - the idea of creating two
>> identical processes when such is wasted in 99% of cases - is a quirk.
>
>Indeed. Also, many authors have noticed that there is but one good in
>heaven whose name is Allah and all kinds of other 'quirky' dogmatic
>assertions about things they happen to believe in for some reason.
>Unsurprisingly, somebody who has absolutely no idea what purpose fork
>could serve never understands why it is useful. We have, I think,
>already discussed this in great length and continuing to argue about
>this is unlikely to produce any useful result. So, could you perhaps
>have the kindness to continue your preaching in
>alt.religion.bill.our.saviours or some other, suitable group intended
>to discuss religious convictions?

Let me guess. Meds ran out. Get thee to a CVS, pronto!

--
> No, I haven't, that's why I'm asking questions. If you won't help me,
> why don't you just go find your lost manhood elsewhere.

CLC in a nutshell.

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Makefile picked by make
Next: EFBIG and determination of max file, et al.