Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!starnine!kalash
From: kalash@starnine.UUCP (Joe Kalash)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: SysV IPC:  eyesore or misunderstood art?
Message-ID: <668@starnine.UUCP>
Date: 27 Apr 89 23:59:39 GMT
References: <28901@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <837@mtxinu.UUCP> <8015@june.cs.washington.edu>
Reply-To: kalash@starnine.UUCP (Joe Kalash)
Organization: StarNine Technologies, Inc. Berkeley
Lines: 15

In article <8015@june.cs.washington.edu> ka@june.cs.washington.edu (Kenneth Almquist) writes:
>
>The decision to include IPC in the SVID (assuming it's there; someone
>correct me if I'm wrong) really contradicts the original view of the
>purpose of the System V IPC.


The System V IPC is in the SVID, however it is part of the optional
kernal extension module (as is shared memory, and semaphores).

		Joe Kalash
		uunet!starnine!kalash
		kalash@starnine.com

Disclaimer: StarNine knows nothing about what I am saying.