Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!auspex!guy From: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions Subject: Re: AIX (is it unix)? Message-ID: <2509@auspex.auspex.com> Date: 27 Sep 89 18:20:47 GMT References: <1702@naucse.UUCP><978@mtxinu.UUCP> <868@cirrusl.UUCP> <12197@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <2487@auspex.auspex.com> <12207@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <2497@auspex.auspex.com> <12214@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> Reply-To: guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) Organization: Auspex Systems, Santa Clara Lines: 27 >>And also not an interesting one, > >I think the readers should be left to decide what's interesting to them >and what's not on their own, IMHO. I find it impossible to take anyone seriously the assertion that "well, I can say 'x isn't easy' because my definition of 'easy' says it's not easy", if the person making this assertion doesn't bother to give their definition of "easy". If there *are* people out there who can take this seriously, I consider that their problem. It really wouldn't have been *that* hard to actually give your definition, so that people can actually decide whether it makes sense or not. I infer from your statement about "adding more system calls to the kernel" that that is the basis of your statement; had you mentioned it in the first place, it would have been a lot better. I shall simply note that the streams mechanism is having stuff added to it in S5R4 to support out-of-band data and to support TCP urgent data, and note therefore that if the current BSD socket mechanism needs change to support the ISO protocols, perhaps even including new system calls (although, frankly, I would rather take e.g. Keith Sklower's word for it that it's necessary than yours, since he's one of the people actually *implementing* the ISO protocols on BSD), this cannot necessarily be claimed as an advantage for S5 streams, since they required modification as well....