Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sockets vs streams.  An attempt to answer the original question
Message-ID: <1990Sep4.202056.2434@zoo.toronto.edu>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <9008242107.AA19843@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> <PAGE.90Aug26161024@swap.Eng.Sun.COM> <1990Aug27.111656.1@amazon.llnl.gov> <Aug.27.17.09.46.1990.14447@athos.rutgers.edu> <1990Aug28.162400.17811@zoo.toronto.edu> <38584@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 20:20:56 GMT

In article <38584@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> sklower@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Keith Sklower) writes:
>>...the way it should be, unlike what both Berkeley and AT&T have done
>>(both have reluctantly conceded that most people want to use "read"
>>and "write" and have made that work, but their hearts were clearly
>>elsewhere).
>
>I find this inaccurate, partronizing and tiresome.  I have worked around
>Berkeley since 1978 and although was not a member of the actual unix group
>in 1982 while TCP was being incorporated, attended their meetings and
>seminars.

I wasn't there; all I got to do was read the resulting documents.  Some
of which come over with a very strong air of "well, if you want to do it
right, you will of course use our 57 new system calls, but we grudgingly
admit that read/write will work if you insist on being backward".
-- 
TCP/IP: handling tomorrow's loads today| Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
OSI: handling yesterday's loads someday|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu   utzoo!henry
