From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:47:05 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <8feb2f7865e580a9692859fd8a9a41a7@kw.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAP6exYLN7zgP=-u1Yit8VqvkUtT3Re2PfdNBt2BT=W3B1XmN9g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAP6exYLN7zgP=-u1Yit8VqvkUtT3Re2PfdNBt2BT=W3B1XmN9g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] I found this discussion pretty funny
Topicbox-Message-UUID: be4cd486-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> "Yes, some old-timers could argue that original UNIX didn't have socket=
s,
> and that the BSD interface is ugly and an abomination and that it _shou=
ld_
> have been a namespace thing, but that argument falls flat on its face w=
hen
> you realize that the "pipe()" system call _was_ in original UNIX, and h=
as
> all the same issues."

appeal to the authority of the unix authors as a defense of sockets?
surely someone has missed a bit.

or another way, since the original was broken, we must not work correctly=
?

i'm tempted to draw one of those ascii slashdot memes

	unix =E2=86=92

	\o/
	 |
	/\

woosh!

- erik