Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!midway!clout!chinet!les
From: les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Regular pipe vs. Named Pipe
Message-ID: <1991Jun13.143802.3600@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 13 Jun 91 14:38:02 GMT
References: <14192: Jun923:16:0791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <2736@root44.co.uk> <25101:Jun1217:29:0291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu>
Organization: Chinet - Chicago Public Access UNIX
Lines: 16

In article <25101:Jun1217:29:0291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> brnstnd@kramden.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein) writes:

>I meant what I wrote. A program which supports message queues and
>UNIX-domain sockets will work correctly on far more machines than a
>program which supports named pipes. In fact, a program which does
>anything with named pipes that couldn't be done with pipes is almost
>certainly going to fail on one of (A) SunOS; (B) Ultrix; (C) SVR4.

Does "anything" include open()?  And by more machines, do you mean
more types of machine or more existing machines?  I'd guess that
386's running SysVr3 or Xenix are the biggest chunk of the unix
market right now and they won't have sockets unless they come with
an add-on TCP/IP package.

Les Mikesell
  les@chinet.chi.il.us