[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: On PATH_MAX
From: |
Christopher Nelson |
Subject: |
RE: On PATH_MAX |
Date: |
Thu, 3 Nov 2005 10:04:56 -0700 |
> "Alfred M\. Szmidt" <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > Make it possible to set the amount a user is able to
> allocate instead
> > of setting any kind of static limit that is impossible to get away
> > from without recompiling the whole system.
> >
> > Arbitrary limits are poor software design, and have always been.
>
> I tend to agree here. :-)
>
> Whether the OS architect likes it or not, applications that
> use the file system the way GNU Arch does _do_ exist. And
> it's not up to the OS architect to decide whether they should
> exist at all.
Another good posibility is having a *peek* function, that way you can see how
big the message is *before* you accept it. Then if you don't want it, you can
drop it. Spoon has that function, and it's very useful.
-={C}=-
- Re: On PATH_MAX, (continued)
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/03
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Marcus Brinkmann, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/04
- Message not available
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Jonathan S. Shapiro, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Michal Suchanek, 2005/11/04
- Re: On PATH_MAX, Michal Suchanek, 2005/11/04
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX,
Christopher Nelson <=
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/03
RE: On PATH_MAX, Christopher Nelson, 2005/11/04