From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
From: "Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net>
Message-ID: <Jr6dnbM9c8THQQ2iRVn-sw@comcast.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <oprw7au7mtrveh1e@smtp.borf.com>, <20031017143638.B10499@submarine>
Subject: Re: [9fans] porting from vs. porting to Plan 9
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2003 10:33:41 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 73ecb718-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.