From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:19:16 -0400
From: William Josephson <jkw@eecs.harvard.edu>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: Re: [9fans] APE fork()
Message-ID: <20060815041916.GA17435@mero.morphisms.net>
References: <114497aa64fc109a727c87b528cfd1ea@mail.gmx.net>
	<44DDCCC6.9010709@comtv.ru>
	<2d5a784f0608120744o580d06c1vbd7e08e7f5951b06@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee9e417a0608120815l34c06f8docd1464bad0ee227d@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ee9e417a0608120815l34c06f8docd1464bad0ee227d@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9fc50c50-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sat, Aug 12, 2006 at 08:15:24AM -0700, Russ Cox wrote:
> I always thought vfork was introduced because
> copy-on-write hadn't been invented yet.
> 
> It's the only logical explanation.

Perhaps, but it isn't the one usually given.
It is usually billed as a way to make fork+exec faster/cheaper.