Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Have Sockets Run Their Course?

Posted by kdawson on from the as-it-was-in-the-beginning dept.

ChelleChelle writes "This article examines the limitations of the sockets API. The Internet and the networking world in general have changed in very significant ways since the sockets API was first developed in 1982, but the API has had the effect of narrowing the ways in which developers think about and write networked applications. This article discusses the history as well as the future of the sockets API, focusing on how 'high bandwidth, low latency, and multihoming are driving the development of new alternatives.'"

13 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Really... by Wingman+5 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I think sockets work fi.... *connection lost, host not routable*

    1. Re:Really... by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think sockets work fi.... *connection lost, host not routable*

      Really, for networking, all they need to do is ask slashdot's elite technical team. Years before Gmail automatically saved my drafts, /. consistently preempted everone with the above example (or Homeland_Security/FBI/Police knocking on the door, or person getting a hard attack) and snatches the post from the jaws of defeat when the user wouldn't otherwise be able to hit submit. Moreover, unlike anyone else to this day, even gmail, there is also a nice little hint as to the cause of the interruption.

    2. Re:Really... by knutkracker · · Score: 5, Funny

      or person getting a hard attack

      Viagra overdose?

    3. Re:Really... by lskovlund · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is not funny. It's called priapism and can result in impotence or worse.

    4. Re:Really... by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 3, Funny

      Methinks someone has a sad story to tell...

  2. Re:Open Transport, Part II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, I did hear it was a Xerox standard so it must have been copied from someone. I guess it could have been Apple.

  3. Re:Open Transport, Part II by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Well, I did hear it was a Xerox standard so it must have been copied from someone."

    I hope you meant to make that joke.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  4. Re:whats really needed... by fractoid · · Score: 4, Funny

    Or more like this? :)

    --
    Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  5. Yes Mine are good by ben2umbc · · Score: 3, Funny

    My socks are fine for now. When they do run their course I go to walmart and get new socks its $5 for 6 pair!

  6. Re:Hilarious by Nocturna81 · · Score: 3, Funny

    alt.news.slashdot?

  7. Re:Structured Stream Transport by Phs2501 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Firewalls don't support [SCTP]. Consumer routers can't do NAT on it. New protocols on the Internet are fairly unlikely to have a chance.

    This is a good example of why NAT sucks. When IPv6 comes along and and restores true end-to-end connectivity across the Internet, there will be a lot more freedom to experiment with new and interesting protocols. Except, of course...

    New protocols on the Internet are fairly unlikely to have a chance.

    Damn.

  8. Re:Unix always had it by SQLGuru · · Score: 5, Funny

    You mean, like pipes?

    Pipes for local communication and tubes for global communication. Seems like a winner.

  9. Re:Structured Stream Transport by ADRA · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sorry to cut it to you, but NAT is here to stay. As a security paradigm, there's no surface attack to a user's PC that isn't even visible.

    --
    Bye!