Here's the flame everyone's asking for (was Re: Shared Memory in BSD4.3 is lacking?)

[Brandon Allbery]

As quoted from <47 at kenobi.UUCP> by ford at kenobi.UUCP (Mike Ditto):
+---------------
| In article <997 at PT.CS.CMU.EDU> jgm at 5555tK.GP.CS.CMU.EDU (John Myers) writes:
| > In article <43 at kenobi.UUCP> ford at kenobi.UUCP (Mike Ditto) writes:
| > Then why the heck can't you open(2) a BSD unix domain socket?  The
| > semantics seem pretty obvious. (Create a new socket and connect to
| > the socket named in the open call.)  Sounds like <10 lines of code to
| > me.
| 
| The main reason that I see is that a Unix domain socket is not really
| supposed to show up in the filesystem, and it supposedly doesn't in
+---------------

Ah, but this is *exactly* the same as System V IPC!  Make up your minds:
why is a BSD socket not supposed to be in the file namespace, but System V IPC
(in particular, message queues and semaphores) is flamed for it?  (I will not
yet concede the point with shared memory:  the Sequent method sounds best to
me, but then why does only Sequent use it?)
-- 
	      Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc
       {well!hoptoad,uunet!hnsurg3,cbosgd,sun!mandrill}!ncoast!allbery