Re: design goals vs mechanisms (was: Re: Let's do some coding :-)

[Michal Suchanek]

On 10/28/05, Jonathan S. Shapiro <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 15:08 +0200, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > On 10/26/05, Marcus Brinkmann <address@hidden> wrote:
> > > At Wed, 26 Oct 2005 22:43:06 +0200,
> > > Bas Wijnen <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > If you want stability, you probably want to do some of the following:
> > > * allocate a fixed amount of resources statically up front,
> > >   instead dynamically at run time.
> >
> > I kind of dislike this. That is one of the things that is nice in
> > Hurd/Mach: you have no limit on the size of strings like filenames. I
> > do not think I would like a filename that has 1M characters, but I do
> > not know what is the  "reasonable limit" for filename length.
>
> I don't know anybody who *does* like this, but go read your sentence
> again. What you are saying is: "I want the system to run robustly, but I
> am unable to specify the conditions under which it must do so."
>
> This just won't work. It isn't even a kernel vs. application issue.
>
hehe, I now understand why AMS likes to throw so much dirt in your direction :)

Some of your replies are so much constructive...

Like you publish a paper explaining ways of transferring unbound data
and then reply "it just won't work" when I complain about size limit
on strings.

It may turn out to be impractical to not limit the length of
filenames. Maybe you have tried already and found out. But that is not
what your reply says.

Thanks

Michal


--
             Support the freedom of music!
Maybe it's a weird genre  ..  but weird is *not* illegal.
Maybe next time they will send a special forces commando
to your picnic .. because they think you are weird.
 www.music-versus-guns.org  http://en.policejnistat.cz