Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!mailrus!umix!umich!mibte!fmsrl7!oxtrap!hal!ncoast!allbery
From: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Help us defend against VMS!
Message-ID: <7496@ncoast.UUCP>
Date: 12 Mar 88 20:09:47 GMT
References: <12152@brl-adm.ARPA>
Reply-To: allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery)
Followup-To: comp.unix.wizards
Organization: Cleveland Public Access UN*X, Cleveland, Oh
Lines: 23

As quoted from <12152@brl-adm.ARPA> by mwm@violet.berkeley.edu (My watch has windows):
+---------------
| On the other hand, there are lots of OS features - shared memory,
| shared libraries, real IPC (as opposed to pipes), remote file systems,
| and other interesting things for five years or more. These are things
| that either don't exist, or have no standard, in Unix systems. At best
| they have defacto standards.
+---------------

?!  I know that all you folks consider non-BSD Unixes to not be Unix, but
these and other features are all in System V Release 3, which (believe it or
not) IS a standard.

So why are you all comparing VMS to an OS which doesn't support record locking
and is schizoid over how to use shared memory?  ;-)

[Hey AT&T:  shared memory might be a pain to attach to the filesystem, but
message queues make sense there.  But please add something like msg_qnum
to file operations rather than forcing the O_NDELAY braindamage on messages.
AND MAKE poll() WORK ON NON-STREAMS!!!]
-- 
	      Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc
       {well!hoptoad,uunet!hnsurg3,cbosgd,sun!mandrill}!ncoast!allbery