Demand paged executables.

[Guy Harris]

>  I've found, what I would consider to be a silly design decision on either
>AT&T (or possibly ICS). (One of many.)

It's AT&T's fault....

>  Why should this happen?

No good reason whatsoever.

>What is wrong with simply locking the inode internally, (so that the file
>doesn't disappear), but drop the link count to zero.

Nothing is wrong with it; in fact, UNIX has done that since V6, I think,
so there are no changes needed to implement that, other than removing
the check in "unlink" for files currently being used as shared text
files.

>How is this at all different from:

It's not different in any way.

>I believe that BSD 4.3 (Or, at least, SunOS 3.0+, I never used anything
>below that.) will let me do that type of thing.

You believe correctly.  That particular bogosity was in V7 from AT&T -
no, it wasn't stuck in in System III or System V, you can blame the
folks in Research for that one - and Berkeley ripped it out, probably in
4.1BSD or even earlier.

It may, with any luck, be gone in S5R4.