Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!amgraf!huver
From: huver@amgraf.UUCP (Huver)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: resource tracking
Keywords: Discipline, discipline
Message-ID: <352@amgraf.UUCP>
Date: 9 Feb 90 05:52:54 GMT
References: <355.25C92297@weyr.FIDONET.ORG> <926@tardis.Tymnet.COM>
Organization: Amgraf Inc.,  Kansas City
Lines: 21

In article <926@tardis.Tymnet.COM>, jms@tardis.Tymnet.COM (Joe Smith) writes:
> ... 
> Unix does not have this problem since there are no other tasks sharing your
> virtual address space.  All memory gotten via malloc() can be freed with no
> problem.

Not so fast.  UNIX IPC provides posting/sharing preset and/or allocated
memory blocks among processes (that don't have to be forked in the same
family).  Such m/calloc'd memory certainly cannot be freed "with no problem".
In fact, processes can simply go away and not tell the kernel anything
about releasing the shared memory ID numbers.  UNIX at this point is not at
liberty to reclaim them, because there is no way for it to tell if some
time later a new process isn't going to ask for such a shared memory.

Is it logical to ask an opreating system to guard against incompetent/
ignorant/lazy programmers who do not act responsible for their own actions?

If a person is not supposed to throw dirty socks around the house, whether
he/she lives alone or not, why is it "a good idea" that some O/S should
provide resource tracking?  The computer is supposed to follow you closely
and silently pick up the dirty socks you throw around, is that it?