Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!mvb.saic.com!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!EU.net!Germany.EU.net!news From: bs@Germany.EU.net (Bernard Steiner) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Subject: Re: Notes on the *new* FreeBSD V1.1 VM system Date: 3 Mar 1994 13:16:09 +0100 Organization: EUnet Deutschland GmbH, Dortmund, Germany Lines: 12 Distribution: world Message-ID: <2l4ke9$osi@Germany.EU.net> References: <CLutBp.4K9@flatlin.ka.sub.org> <a09878.762550221@giant> <2l0b06$2qi@GRAPEVINE.LCS.MIT.EDU> <2l1ov4$m7o@germany.eu.net> <2l2mmf$me9@GRAPEVINE.LCS.MIT.EDU> NNTP-Posting-Host: qwerty.germany.eu.net In article <2l2mmf$me9@GRAPEVINE.LCS.MIT.EDU>, wollman@ginger.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) writes: |> In all seriousness, a POSIX-compliant operating system MUST NOT |> require programs to call non-POSIX functions in order to operate |> correctly according to the standard. Therefore, vfork() isn't a |> solution to the problem of `60-Mb process forks in order to exec |> /bin/true'. Yeah. But then, a well-behaved process *does*, and I believe it sort of helps the system to run more efficiently. Bernard