Re: Upcoming time boundary events

On 5/30/25 23:41, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:

On Fri, 30 May 2025 09:46:27 +0200, Marc Van Dyck wrote:
 

Well, is anyone else proposing a suitable replacement for FAL and
transparent task to task communication ?

 The irony of it, that the DEC concept requires creating a separate server
process for every client connection, while the standard *nix sockets API
lets a single server process handle multiple connections (or fork off
separate processes to spread the load, as it chooses).
 I say “irony” because, of course, creation of all these extra processes
willy-nilly is expensive on VMS (and on its Windows NT successor), while
it is much cheaper on *nix systems.

That's complicated in unix by the fact of multiple 'known' port
numbers for eg: ssh, telnet, nfs.etc. inetd looks at the port number
then spawns off the relevant process, depending on the port number.
Simple, neat and elegant, one of the good ideas from unix 4.3, back
in the 1980's. rBeing rplaced by xinetd, for better security.
Chris