Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!nrl-cmf!cmcl2!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: ABIs and the futurrrr of UNIX(tm)
Message-ID: <7599@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 31 Mar 88 22:10:48 GMT
References: <431@micropen> <185@tscs.UUCP> <587@garth.UUCP> <24674@cmcl2.NYU.EDU>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 14

In article <24674@cmcl2.NYU.EDU> edler@cmcl2.UUCP (Jan Edler) writes:
>In both cases, I worry that the UNIX implementor will be discouraged
>from exploring innovative extensions to the system.

If the interface provided is sufficiently powerful and general,
then it can accommodate many such extensions.  E.g. transparent
networked file systems.  Face servers.  Processes as files.
Etc.  (Do all the good ideas come out of Murray Hill, or does
it only seem that way?)

It might be nice if every time someone decided to add a system
call to achieve some "added functionality", they were required
to identify one to be removed at the same time.  (I have heard
that this was an informal rule during early UNIX development;
I don't know if it's true but it should have been.)