FW: OT: broken/useless ansi - console driver??

[John Esak]

I have never seen such utter hogwash and fallacious reasoning from anyone...
let alone you. You have just closed this discussion for me. I have no more
time for inanities. Relating any of this to "rm -r" is a stretch beyond
which I'm not willing to go. Others may join with you in your circular
reasoning and nonsense. Not me. This was only a comment for me that SCO did
something unforgivably stupid and yes, wrong. You may defend them until the
ship goes down... and with retarded decisions like the one to break
OpenServer so that it is as bad as Unixware... you can be sure that is where
they are headed. My choice would be to enlighten them with better ideas, not
defend their bad one.

JE


> -----Original Message-----
> From: filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces at lists.celestial.com]On Behalf Of
> Jean-Pierre A. Radley
> Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 8:15 PM
> To: FilePro Mailing List
> Subject: Re: FW: OT: broken/useless ansi - console driver??
>
>
> John Esak propounded (on Tue, Oct 25, 2005 at 07:39:28PM -0400):
> | I think you've lost me on this one... I have no idea what you
> are talking
> | about. Production machine??  This is a developer who is writing
> new code on
> | a development machine... and various connected via tcp/ip
> outlying clients.
> | How do you develop if not by compiling and re-compiling and
> trying the new
> | binary... over and over until it all works?  It's the way I do
> it. I don't
> | know any other way. :-)
>
> Obviously you can't tell if something works without running it.
>
> But testing version N+1 of something where version N is in constant use
> never requires that you overwrite, remove, destroy or cripple version N.
>
> Beginning users of Unix are taught, very early on, that you will hang
> from your own petard by typing 'rm -r' in any directory, worst case
> being doing this as root while in /.
>
> Unix does not protect you from that and other destructive commands
> (like, say, 'chmod 0 *').  So you learn, "don't do that!".
>
> Some do 'touch /-i' to guard against 'rm *'; it works up to a point.
> Others alias rm (in shells which have aliases) to do something other
> than just plain run /bin/rm.
>
> Now suppose the 'text file busy' error had never been in effect.  I
> postulate that early in one's Unix career, one would have been taught,
> right along with the lesson about 'rm *', to "Do not copy a program on
> top of one which may be in use, lest its current users see really nasty
> effects".
>
> So: as the doctor said, if it hurts to keep hitting your head against
> the fireplace mantle, don't do it!
>
> After you're satisfied with your testing of version N+1, use the
> mv-before-cp commands I mentioned earlier to install version N+1.
>
> --
> JP
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list