Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!allegra!sjuvax!jss@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
From: jss@UCB-VAX.Berkeley.EDU
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  Re: Unix/C program modularity
Message-ID: <2474@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 27-Oct-85 00:33:31 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.2474
Posted: Sun Oct 27 00:33:31 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 31-Oct-85 07:07:31 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 21

I am delighted to receive your comments, and I suspect that in great bulk
we agree with each other, though your statements are more refined than mine.

A question about database systems, however.  Unix provides fixed length record
access, but not locking.  While I agree that a database library should be
external to the kernel (sp?), I think that named and unnamed semaphores and
file byterange locking should be added to the kernel, as these would provide
the basis for a great deal of flexibility not presently available.

As to the comment that UNIX does not protect mediocre or bad programmers, I
am inclined to agree. Sadly, there are all too few goo programmers, including
those who wrote UNIX (i.e. they weren't ALL good).

I would be curious to find out what you feel the minimal changes to the UNIX
kernel would be to support network interprocess communication and secure
database transactions, particularly in a distributed environment.

Jon

P.S., if either of wyou wishes to be taken off of the cc list, please let me 
know.