ETXTBSY

[Fairlight]

Four score and seven years--eh, screw that!
At about Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 08:35:03PM -0400,
Jay Ashworth blabbed on about:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 07:21:23PM -0400, Jean-Pierre A. Radley wrote:
> > >From a SCO engineer:
> > | While I'm sympathetic and would also like to hear what the issues
> > | are, I don't think this is likely to change.  This behavior has been
> > | in Solaris, SunOS, and Unix System V for over 15 years, with lots of
> > | systems and customers running just fine.
> 
> Clearly, no.  SCO 5 boxen won't do this wrong; anyone got one left to
> test on?

Client's system:

[anon] [~] [8:45pm]: cat sleeper.c
#include <stdio.h>

int main() {
    sleep(300);
    exit(0);
}
[anon] [~] [8:45pm]: gcc -o sleeper sleeper.c
[anon] [~] [8:45pm]: ./sleeper &
[1] 9808
[anon] [~] [8:45pm]: echo "testing" >sleeper
sleeper: Text file busy.
[anon] [~] [8:45pm]: cp sleeper.c sleeper
cp: unable to create file sleeper: Text file busy (error 26)
[anon] [~] [8:45pm]: uname -X

System = SCO_SV
Node = anon
Release = 3.2v5.0.6
KernelID = 2000-07-27
Machine = PentIII
BusType = ISA
Serial = XXXXXXXXX
Users = XX-user
OEM# = 0
Origin# = 1
NumCPU = 1

> I'm not actually an expert on this specific point, but Solaris is an
> SVR*3* kernel, isn't it?

No, SVR4.  Before that, SunOS 4.x was BSD-based.  When they redid SunOS for
Solaris, they used SVR4.

"NOTE:  Solaris 2.x is based on SVR4.0.  These tips are useful in a
limited way.  Read this section for general advice, but follow the
"Solaris 2.x" section details." - 
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/software/inn-faq/part2/section-14.html

> Anyone with a clue dropping your product for Linux because you can't be
> bothered to make it secure?  Yeah, I'd call that a revenue issue.

Am I allowed to chortle at that yet?  :)

> This is a Unix design engineer?  Did they hire him from Microsoft?

Nah.  Prolly failed the MCSE exam.  :) ^ 32

> When all four wheels on his car lock up because of a bug in the ABS
> controller and he spins under a truck, he'll get used to that, after it
> happens once or twice?

I'm glad to see -someone- came up with a similar analogy.

mark->
-- 
There is no "I" in TEAM.
This would be the primary reason I've chosen not to join one.