Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!rutgers!labrea!aurora!ames!amdahl!unixprt!monkey
From: monkey@unixprt.UUCP (Monkey Face@unixprt)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.lans,comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Streams TCP/IP
Message-ID: <284@unixprt.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 31-Jul-87 01:25:33 EDT
Article-I.D.: unixprt.284
Posted: Fri Jul 31 01:25:33 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 1-Aug-87 21:37:02 EDT
References: <281@unixprt.UUCP> <24335@sun.uucp>
Organization: uni-xperts - Unix System and Networking Consultants
Lines: 16
Keywords: TCP/IP, Streams
Summary: STREAMS vs. Sockets
Xref: mnetor comp.dcom.lans:705 comp.protocols.tcp-ip:770

In article <24335@sun.uucp>, guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) writes:
> I won't bother replying to the whiny little question at the end,...
Two n's in 'whinny', besides I was laughing at the time.
Several people at Sun have mailed me the answer anyway.  Anyone who
wants to know can ask me via mail.
> > ...A vendor that must rely on ATT
> > to provide a base, a strategy based on sockets does not seem appropriate
> > in the long term.
> That depends on several things.  First, it depends on whether the
> vendor wants to continue to depend on AT&T to provide a base, especially
> given the S5R3 licensing agreement.  Second, it depends on whether
> they want to re-port the rest of what they've done to S5R3.
Most current and near future UNIX vendors do and will use S5Rn based
ports.  I beleive that vendor management can see the costs associated
with not following this path.  Their customer will demand upward
compatible functionality.