[TUHS] Were all of you.. Hippies?
clemc at ccc.com
Sun Mar 26 04:51:22 AEST 2017
I'm traveling so can not offer a good answer at the moment. But pre-BSD
networking was the the MIT-Chaosnet code which Ron is alluding. Putting
devices names in the UNIX space was done. Why Joy decided to abandon it
will never know without asking him. Maybe it was because RIG and Accent
(Mach's predecessors) had not and Bill was definitely trying to add
features that those systems had.
Anyway, when I get back I can try to answer some questions about it. I
think it was recently recovered.
Side note to Dan - I just quick looked at you post -- it seems excellent, I
want some time to digest.
On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 5:55 PM, ron minnich <rminnich at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 4:56 PM Josh Good <pepe at naleco.com> wrote:
>> Which brings up a question I have: why didn't UNIX implement ethernet
>> network interfaces as file names in the filesystem? Was that "novelty" a
>> BDS development straying away from AT&T UNIX?
> See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc681, section 4j:
> FILEDES = OPEN( "/DEV/NET/HARV",2 );
> People were thinking about it. There was no shortage of people at the time
> who were struggling to find a way to make the Unix model work for
> networking (not me, I had no clue; I was just an interested observer). It
> didn't quite work out and as a result we were left with the non-unix-like
> socket interface we have today, and a feeling among many of us that we'd
> missed an opportunity.
> It's really hard to get this stuff right, and the approach outlined in the
> RFC is not really what you want. Rob had a nice talk 20+ years ago about
> the right and wrong way to do this; I can't find it and he can't find it,
> and I keep hoping it'll appear.
> It's a shame that Unix did not get a Unix-like model for networking, but
> maybe it was just too soon.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the TUHS