STREAMS query

[Bill Crews]

> 	streams are better architecturally, but they don't exist
> 	(at least in a form that mortals can get hold of)
> 
> 	sockets are available, and do much of what is needed, but
> 	lack elegance.
> 
> Steve Glaser

At the risk of being overly simplistic . . .

Telephones are great!  I can call someone specific, talk to him/her without
keying a mike each time or any other such bother, no one else can here what
we say (:-) . . . They are great!

BUT . . . imagine having a CB radio in your car and driving down the highway.
You want to monitor the Smoky reports, and you may want to report some
Smokies of your own.  Now, imagine what it would be like if the ONLY thing
allowed on channel 19 is a request for a specific other CB station to switch
with you to a private channel, where you can converse and then switch back to
channel 19.  It would totally destroy the intended use of the CB service.

The point is that, in the real world, there are applications where circuits
are clearly best AND there are those where datagrams are clearly best.  If
one tries to shoehorn one into the other, our ability to model the real world
is significantly diminished.

I tend to be a datagram service advocate -- but ONLY because there seem to
be so many people out there who have no personal need for anything other than
circuit networking and who therefore want to abolish datagram service or other-
wise reduce it to klugedom.  WHY???   The need is real; circuits don't suffice;
let datagrams co-exist with circuits!
-- 
  /  \    Bill Crews
 ( bc )   Cyb Systems, Inc
  \__/    Austin, Texas

[ gatech | ihnp4 | nbires | seismo | ucbvax ] ! ut-sally ! cyb-eng ! bc