Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!bbn!ulowell!page
From: page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Protect Failed
Message-ID: <9968@swan.ulowell.edu>
Date: 31 Oct 88 20:09:30 GMT
References: <8810281416.AA01431@decwrl.dec.com> <5147@cbmvax.UUCP>
Reply-To: page@swan.ulowell.edu (Bob Page)
Followup-To: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Organization: University of Lowell, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 34

[followups to comp.sys.amiga.tech]

andy@cbmvax.UUCP (Andy Finkel) wrote:
>Any file currently in use can't have its protection bits changes
>(under 1.1, 1.2, 1.3)  Locks (ie Assigns) count as 'in use'.

So why can't you look at "in use" file system resources?

This has always seemed arbitrary to me, especially something as
harmless as poking attribute bits in the fileheader when another
process is reading the data in the file.

But the real reason is I want to do the Unix equivalent of

datagenerator >>logfile
tail -f file

Sure, I can say
	datagenerator | tee >>logfile
but that begs the question.  I'm sure the answer can't be "because we
want to avoid race conditions" when you have something as notorious as
ExNext() out there.

I also like to download lots of files to ram and would like to know
how big a transcript/capture file is, but I can't until I close the
file.  Reminds me of some other three-letter operating system's file
system.

Is the real reason "because that's the way we inherited it" ??

..Bob
-- 
Bob Page, U of Lowell CS Dept.  page@swan.ulowell.edu  ulowell!page
Have five nice days.