Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!gatech!ulysses!hector!ekrell From: ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: att & osf Message-ID: <10502@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> Date: 10 Aug 88 15:45:50 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> Sender: netnews@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com Reply-To: ekrell@hector.UUCP (Eduardo Krell) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 18 In article <268@quintus.UUCP> ok@quintus.UUCP (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >Yes, let's have some light instead of quoting out of context, and >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. I disagree. It is much easier to write portable software in SVID than it is to do it in POSIX. POSIX left too many features optional and implementation dependent. It's like the OSI vs TCP/IP "war": the only difference is that OSI was designed by a much larger committee (and you see what the final product looks like). Eduardo Krell AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ UUCP: {att,decvax,ucbvax}!ulysses!ekrell Internet: ekrell@ulysses.att.com