Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!rutgers!att!whuts!picuxa!tgr From: tgr@picuxa.UUCP (Dr. Emilio Lizardo) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: att & osf Summary: huh? Message-ID: <644@picuxa.UUCP> Date: 10 Aug 88 19:02:22 GMT References: <4964@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <3395@vpk4.UUCP> <1988Aug2.171126.17906@utzoo.uucp> <3396@vpk4.UUCP> <249@quintus.UUCP> <1275@sfmag.UUCP> <258@quintus.UUCP> <12118@ncoast.UUCP> <268@quintus.UUCP> Reply-To: tgr@picuxa.UUCP (Dr. Emilio Lizardo) Organization: Planet 10, across the 8th Dimension Lines: 21 In article <268@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: :let's have some common sense: POSIX will be better for _everybody_ :(except AT&T) than the SVID, and a document which is totally controlled :by one company can only be a stopgap as a standard. Correct me if I'm wrong (as if I need to say that in this group :-) but hasn't AT&T publicly committed its support to the POSIX effort? Why are SVID and POSIX seen to be mutually exclusive? If you assume that, because POSIX will be under the "control" of a group other than AT&T, AT&T will suffer, I think you're mistaken. Seems to me that AT&T will reap a benefit wherever UNIX is pushed as an open industry standard. The real question is whether they can take advantage of it in order to sell their own hardware and software. As to the last phrase in the cited text above -- I would hardly call SNA "a stopgap as a standard" (although it's not a document per se). -- Tom Gillespie ( ...att!picuxa!tgr) | (attmail!tgillespie) (201) 952-1178 AT&T/EDS Product Integration Center 299 Jefferson Rd. Parsippany NJ 07054 "Don't take life so serious ... it ain't nohow permanent." -- Walt Kelly