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.