Re: [TUHS] sockets (was Re: First appearance of named pipes)

Options negotiation and the URG/PUSH always freaked me out. PAD (the X.25 equivalent) was a bugger to work with. From memory, the yorkbox was a forked pair of processes one to read, one to write. it didn't work very well to be honest. I tended to convert to half-duplex mode and construct valid lines of input before sending them (which is not very editor friendly unelss you like Teco, which I didn't since it was complicated. I stuck to SOS and ed) Telnet is pretty much just "read and write for networks" except for the options. Back in the days of the BBN Butterfly, the gethostaddr() table for de interwebz was a linear list, and UCL was at the back of the hosts.txt sort and the time it took the daemon to work out who we were, for a login: prompt, was 1-2 sec close to the 30 second drop-link-he's-dead-jim timer in getty or whatever it was then. Sad. I think we made a lot of drama about read and write for networks. Really, asynchronous communicating processes is a lot of fun. I went to Milners lectures on the calculus of communicating systems, it was also too hard, I lost it. That was also when the real underlying routing (pre BGP) was a push-down list, which dropped our routes because we were the boring british side of things and LRU cache said no. Rebooting the right fuzzball or BBN box generall brought it back. X25 was a good fit for PAD. small packets. Enter the ATM cell size discussion <----here. On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 1:09 PM Rob Pike &lt;robpike(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: