Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!bellcore!rutgers!ucsd!ames!ncar!oddjob!gargoyle!att!ihnp4!ihlpl!fangli From: fangli@ihlpl.ATT.COM (Chang) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: SVID Keywords: migration Message-ID: <6187@ihlpl.ATT.COM> Date: 10 Aug 88 15:56:56 GMT References: <4964@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <3395@vpk4.UUCP> <226@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois Lines: 29 In article <226@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM>, rogers@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM (H. L. Rogers) writes: > In article <1275@sfmag.UUCP> der@sfmag.UUCP (D.Rorke) writes: > > Applications written > >to issue n of the interface [SVID] will continue work properly on > >a system which conforms to issue n + 1 (or any subsequent issue) > >subject to a specific evolution mechanism. > Does this not, *by definition*, limit technical advancement by > constraining new technology with *all* *old* technology? You .... > saving previous investments, etc.; just trying to find out if others > see this as a technical handcuff. > -- > HL Rogers (hl.rogers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM) By your definition, yes, it is a technical handcuff, if you think restrain from changing user interface is a technical handcuff. In the software business one can adapt any new technology INSIDE one's software but you never ever change your user interface, you just add new parts to it but by any means avoid modifying the current interface. Think about it, SVID is the user interface of UNIX(R) System V by definition. Fangli Chang If every new issue of SVID is like MVS to DOS, it is not technical wise, it is suicidal.