From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Roman Shaposhnick <rvs@sun.com>
To: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Cc: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Message-ID: <20031020171039.A20559@submarine>
References: <Jr6dnbM9c8THQQ2iRVn-sw@comcast.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Jr6dnbM9c8THQQ2iRVn-sw@comcast.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
Subject: [9fans] Re: your mail
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 17:10:40 -0700
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 74bc2d90-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> Roman Shaposhnick wrote:
> >   I always wanted to see how many applications would break if I were to,
> >   lets say, disable shared memory from SysV API. It could be a nice
> >   experiment to do on a live contemporary distro -- just pick a set of
> >   obscure interfaces and see how many applications are really using
> >   any of it.
>
> Just because something isn't much used doesn't prove that
> it isn't essential to have for a few cases where it is used.
> In the case of shared memory, more recent apps use threads
> instead of separate processes sharing memory.  Threads
> weren't available when shared memory was added.

  And that's why it's important to find out how many applications
  out there are still using it. From my personal perspective,
  shm is not a good thing and it should be avoided.

  It's the same story when P9 (or should I say 9P) broke the
  long-standing promise of having a file around as long as
  you don't close it. Turned out -- not that many apps failed.
  Or so I was told, anyway.

Thanks,
Roman.