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

[Paul McNary]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: 
> filepro-list-bounces+pmcnary=cameron.net at lists.celestial.com 
> [mailto:filepro-list-bounces+pmcnary=cameron.net at lists.celesti
> al.com] On Behalf Of Jay R. Ashworth
> Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 6:02 PM
> To: FilePro Mailing List
> Subject: Re: "text file busy" (was RE: FW: OT: broken/useless ansi...)
> 
> 
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 06:43:01PM -0400, Jean-Pierre A. Radley wrote:
> > | I would be stunned if that behavior wasn't part of the 
> SVVS testing; 
> > | it's *not*?
> > 
> > Since the ETXTBSY error has not been part of Unixware for a 
> decade or 
> > so, why would it have to be tested?
> 
> If Unixware *allows* pure-text binaries in the traditional 
> sense, and does *not* trap for overwriting of them, then it 
> is irretrievably broken.  If they can't get the coffee stains 
> off of their tray-tables; how the *hell* can we trust them to 
> get engine maintenance right?
> 
> I may not have been doing commercial Unix as long as you, JP, 
> but it's gotta be pretty damn close; not too many distros 
> predate Tandy 1.x, which is where I started; I feel entitled 
> to speak ex-cathredra there.
> 
> Cheers,
> -- jra
> -- 
> Jay R. Ashworth                                               
>  jra at baylink.com
> Designer                          Baylink                     
>         RFC 2100
> Ashworth & Associates        The Things I Think               
>          '87 e24
> St Petersburg FL USA      http://baylink.pitas.com            
>  +1 727 647 1274
> 
> 	"NPR has a lot in common with Nascar... we both turn to 
> the left."
> 		- Peter Sagal, on Wait Wait, Don't Tell Me! 
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com 
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list
> 
> 

Jay 

JP's post goes into detail about SCO's response.
If I understand this correctly. This decision was made to SYS V V 4
long before SCO had anything to do with it. I feel copying over
a binary that is use is a system management issue. Just because
it got trapped in the old days doesn't mean it was correct 
procedure. Do you wish to have the system trap for rm -r *?
Why is this different from any file being overwritten? UNIX
has always allowed overwrite without notice. Do we want to go the
Windows route and ask a dozen times if it is OK to delete?

I happen to like OSR6 and have not experienced the problems
noted. The console works fine with the right termcap/terminfo. The
packages we develop have worked fine. Please don't blame SCO
for something that wasn't their choice to make and to me doesn't
sound like a major issue with proper procedures. 

I have almost always used the console for applications. Lately,
however, I have been deploying in server only environments and
let the clients be responsible for compatility. Thin clients
running linux or whatever offer standardization and stability.
The console doesn't matter in this situation. Also SCO has
discussed the console situation and if I understand them correctly
improvements are being looked at.

End soapbox

Paul McNary
McNary Computer Services
pmcnary at cameron.net