Subject: Re: Syscalls [was Re: Support for ACLs]
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: Greywolf <email@example.com>
Date: 03/10/2001 21:39:47
On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, der Mouse wrote:
# Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2001 20:41:21 -0500 (EST)
# From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
# To: firstname.lastname@example.org
# Subject: Syscalls [was Re: Support for ACLs]
# > We could, for example, reclaim some of our syscall space
# > (setdomainname, uname, getdomainname have not been in use since 0.9
# > -- about 10 years ago! How legacy can we get?).
# Why bother? Are syscall numbers a scarce resource?
No, but it's cruft, along with stat43 and stat12.
I don't even support COMPAT_14, but that's probably a little extreme for
Is there seriously stuff out there for which a binary exists without source
that needs to keep backwards binary compatibility?
# der Mouse
7. Compatibility. I booted a NetBSD kernel once which mistakenly mounted
the SunOS root filesystem. It came up running ALL the binaries from SunOS
without a hitch. I was amused.
*BSD: Got source?