"text file busy" (was RE: FW: OT: broken/useless ansi...)

[John Esak]

Oh, okay, I was getting the wrong impression. One of JP's messages said
something like "nothing is going to be fixed..."  I didn't see whether he
agreed with that or not. It seemed like he thought this was odd behavior,
too. Just to accept this kind of a major change with no speaking up and
complaining is what's odd to me. Do the SCO engineers work in a vacuum these
days? Wasn't anyone beta-testing this stuff?  Admittedly, this could be
overlooked... but by the desing engineers themselves??  Did they not think
to *mention* this to the documentation people?  It's all very odd.

John


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth Brody [mailto:kenbrody at bestweb.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 4:07 PM
> To: john at valar.com
> Cc: Fplist (E-mail)
> Subject: "text file busy" (was RE: FW: OT: broken/useless ansi...)
>
>
> Quoting John Esak (Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:33:00 -0400):
> [...]
> > I am the one who thinks it is wrong/stupid behavior. The only thing
> > that should happen when you try writing to a running binary is: you
> > get an error.
>
> You're not the only one who thinks this is "wrong".  I certainly do,
> and I believe that JP does as well.  (See the quote below.)
>
> I think this topic has drifted to "it's not a SCO bug, as this is the
> long-standing behavior of Sun and other platforms", and "here are ways
> to work around this new (for OpenServer) behavior".
>
> So, basically, "it's not a bug", but it's also a very strange design
> decision.
>
> [... Quoting Jean-Pierre A. Radley ...]
> > > Ken Brody propounded (on Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 12:58:33PM -0400):
> [...]
> > > | Though I still don't understand allowing writes to an executing
> > > | binary rather than giving the "text file busy" error.
> > >
> > > I don't either.
>
> --
> KenBrody at BestWeb dot net        spamtrap: <g8ymh8uf001 at sneakemail.com>
> http://www.hvcomputer.com
> http://www.fileProPlus.com