From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 15:07:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 15:07:00 -0400 Received: from p50887457.dip.t-dialin.net ([80.136.116.87]:15268 "EHLO hawkeye.luckynet.adm") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sun, 9 Jun 2002 15:07:00 -0400 Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2002 13:06:51 -0600 (MDT) From: Thunder from the hill X-X-Sender: thunder@hawkeye.luckynet.adm To: Linus Torvalds cc: Kai Henningsen , Subject: Re: [PATCH] Futex Asynchronous Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Linus Torvalds wrote: > Yes, some old-timers could argue that original UNIX didn't have sockets, Not to mention MULTICS... IMO this all looks like "exporting program variables to filesystem", would you do that? (Then we'll need /dev/memory/16k/5362337156/blah, etc.) The next issue would be "how do we stop other processes from using our sockets, semaphores, etc., ending up where we started. Sockets are a good implementation as long as they don't fall down for some particular purpose. This isn't given yet. Semaphores didn't yet fall down, either. So what do you want more? The "old" system might look crappy to you, but it works! It works, even if it's a little more abstract than the Plan-9. Are we Plan-9? Regards, Thunder PS. this mail was sent through a happily working lot of sockets. -- German attitude becoming | Thunder from the hill at ngforever rightaway popular: | "Get outa my way, | free inhabitant not directly for I got a mobile phone!" | belonging anywhere