> > *just* sysv shared memory.  It will be replaced, hopefully within
> > the next few weeks.
> > 
> 
> SysV?  Yuck.
> 
> Good riddance to bad rubbish, says I.
> 
> A three week old dead smelt would be a better shared memory
> implementation than anything those code grinders at AT&T could come up
> with.
> 
	Obviously rabid but, sysv shared memory could be needed by SunOS
	emulation, databases use sysv shared memory... Other emulations might
	need it as well.

	Just because System V is used in commercial environments doesn't
	make it junk, it does some things better than BSD ever will do due
	to BSD having a different focus than System V, i.e. research
	vs boring commercial apps. By the same token, BSD does some things
	better because it can play it fast and loose since it doesn't have
	to give a flying vfork() about backwards compatability. System V
	could never move as fast as NetBSD has, but my SVR4 system is
	more functional and much more stable and predictable than
	NetBSD is. Each has it's purpose and expertise, both should seriously
	consider features of the other than might help in application support.

	Also, UNIX(tm) stopped being AT&T's baby a while ago and some
	of those "code grinders" at USL are pretty good programmers & people.
	Have you met any of them?

		-Rob

------------------------------------------------------------------------------