Xref: utzoo comp.unix.microport:3077 comp.unix.xenix:5530
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!aber-cs!pcg
From: pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport,comp.unix.xenix
Subject: Re: nap in Sys V
Summary: 5.3.2 is Xenix compatible, has nap; also there is a nap driver
Keywords: XENIX SysV nap
Message-ID: <798@aber-cs.UUCP>
Date: 1 Apr 89 10:54:54 GMT
Reply-To: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Distribution: eunet,world
Organization: Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth
	(Disclaimer: my statements are purely personal)
Lines: 30

In article <608@pmafire.UUCP> dave@pmafire.UUCP (Dave Remien) writes:
    In article <1989Mar29.185842.14146@ateng.ateng.com> chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
    :>Which, of course, means that SysV missed the boat.  Except for SysV R3.2,
    :>which of course includes nap().
    
    There are ways to get sub second sleeps in Sys V 3.[0|1], using a serial
    port.

Ughh. Using timeout on reads...

    I didn't notice that nap() was in the 3.2 lib; I'll have to look.

Part of the full Xenix comp@atibility for 5.3.2; they even have shared
segments and semaphores, Xenix style.

BY the way, I have just been testing an Enix 5.3.2 beta copy, and I am going
to report briefly on it soon enough. Summing up, the product is excellent,
the documentation sahould be improved. Enix added some nice BSD
compatibility things, such as the itimer facility, that os course is much
better than nap(). As of now, I think that Enix is the way to go.

5.3.2 is horrible in one respect: too many ways to do the same things.
There are at least four distinct and incompatible tty multiplexing
mechanisms, six distinct and incomaptible inter process communication
styles, and so on. 5.4 will be even worse, presumably, under this aspect.
Ahhhh, compatibility...
-- 
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi            |  ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth         |  UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK  |  INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk