Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: Regular pipe vs. Named Pipe
Message-ID: <.I1CM0B@xds13.ferranti.com>
Date: 20 Jun 91 18:43:46 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>
Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva)
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 20

In article <1991Jun13.184737.6343@eci386.uucp> woods@eci386.UUCP (Greg A. Woods) writes:
> 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.

That's why he said "supports message queues and UNIX domain sockets". That
is to say:

	#ifdef BSD
		... code for sockets ...
	#else
		... code for message queues ...
	#endif

So he wasn't as insane as he sounded. However, as a user of one of the 
system that supports neither... but does support named pipes... I do disagree
with his conclusion.
-- 
Peter da Silva; Ferranti International Controls Corporation; +1 713 274 5180;
Sugar Land, TX  77487-5012;         `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf, today?"