Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.arc.nasa.gov!mindcraft.com!karish
From: karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Regular pipe vs. Named Pipe
Message-ID: <676919990.10383@mindcraft.com>
Date: 14 Jun 91 17:19:49 GMT
References: <14079@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <14192:Jun923:16:0791@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <2736@root44.co.uk> <25101:Jun1217:29:0291@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <1991Jun13.184737.6343@eci386.uucp>
Organization: Mindcraft, Inc.
Lines: 24

In article <1991Jun13.184737.6343@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.UUCP
(Greg A. Woods) writes:
|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.
|
|GRRR!  You should really read some market data Dan.  There are
|probably several million more "machines" out there running with Named
|Pipes and no Sockets than there are the other way 'round.

As far as new UNIX-like systems go, change "more" to "most"
systems supporting FIFOs.  This includes the current releases of
SunOS and ULTRIX.

mkfifo() is specified in POSIX.1, so we can expect this
interface and support for FIFOs themselves to become universal
over the next year or two.
-- 

	Chuck Karish		karish@mindcraft.com
	Mindcraft, Inc.		(415) 323-9000