Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!ucsd!sdcsvax!net1!hutch
From: hutch@net1.ucsd.edu (Jim Hutchison)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: GaaaK! Unix networking called "GOOD"?!?
Message-ID: <4935@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU>
Date: 9 May 88 07:47:58 GMT
References: <10227@stb.UUCP>
Sender: nobody@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU
Reply-To: hutch@net1.UUCP (Jim Hutchison)
Lines: 33
Keywords: Unix,SYSV,4.2,Amiga

In article <10227@stb.UUCP> michael@stb.UUCP (Michael) writes:
>Unix? Isn't that the thing that limits you to 16 files per process?

Actually the limitation is related to the maximum number of open files
a process gets (since it is done using file descriptors so you can do
nice generic read/write/select on them if you wan to).  This sun is
very friendly and will happily let me have 30 open files.  It's pretty
much a configuration issue.

[...]
>In Chaos, you can easily wait for a message on any port, including getting
>software interrupts, or even running as the task that sent you the message
>(undocumented, but it's there in 1.2)
>
>In sockets, you can only select(), and then you have to actually poll
>to see which one said hi. If you poll in order (1-2-3-4-5-etc), it is
>possible for a message to come in on 2 after you've check it.

Not actually, in actuality select() returns a bitmask of "ready" file
descriptors.  Note: with UDP (and perhaps RDP) you only need to have one
port open, check out the mazewars game.  Admittedly the guy(s) on the server
get(s) a decided advantage when the net load goes up, such is life.

>In sockets, pipes are completely unguaranteed for multiple writers.
I'm confused as to what you are refering to here.

>p.s. "Give me a good multitasking system with decent networking, or give
>me death (a model 1 in good working order)".

Give me an out-of-band message, and I'll stop taking singing lessons. :-)
    Jim Hutchison   		UUCP:	{dcdwest,ucbvax}!cs!net1!hutch
		    		ARPA:	Hutch@net1.ucsd.edu
Disclaimer:  I represent my own opinions.