[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2006/12/19]
> This is very sweet of Unix. Indeed. > > * Why is it sensible to allow to truncate a file someone has opened? Why not? if you want to do it, go ahead. the system is not your nanny. > * Especially if you don't allow to remove such files? > * Or, more specifically, you ALLOW to remove such files, but not to > reclaim the disk space? > * And how am I supposed to know which process is using the file? > > For instance, Unix will let you overwrite a shared object used by a > process, and the process will crash. Isn't it *hateful*? It does allow you to remove them. logically the file is no longer there after you remove it. as someone mentioned - if there is an open file handle to that file it is not deleted until the process closes the file. this is done exactly to prevent crashes. if you really want I am sure there is a method to open a file exclusively, but in my opinion current behavior is far better than the windows behavior. why do you think every time you install some crap windows ask for a reboot? that IS hateful.There's stuff above here
Generated at 03:01 on 20 Dec 2006 by mariachi 0.52