rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (04/14/88)
>... actively incompatible with the standard >interface ("standard" meaning the /usr/group standard and the SVID -- real >standards -- ... The only thing that makes the SVID a standard is the unmitigated gall of AT&T in calling it such. A series of books written by a single vendor does not a standard make. Were honesty more valued in the marketplace, vendors would be saying we conform to the SVID guidelines and those that have signed a Release 3 license would be saying we conform to the SVID requirements /rich $alz -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (04/15/88)
In article <623@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes: >The only thing that makes the SVID a standard is the unmitigated gall >of AT&T in calling it such. Various federal procurement review boards have upheld the use of SVID as a valid standard, and the federal government is hypersensitive to issues of unfair competition. From a practical viewpoint, I find the SVID more useful than the (so far incomplete) POSIX standards are shaping up to be. That's not to say the SVID is perfect, of course.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/17/88)
> The only thing that makes the SVID a standard is the unmitigated gall > of AT&T in calling it such... No, the thing that makes the SVID a standard is the vast clout AT&T wields in the Unix world. Whether it *should* wield such clout is another issue; the fact is, it *does*. A great many vendors (and users!) are influenced heavily by the SVID, despite its single-vendor status, and it is a major influence on standards work (e.g. POSIX) as well. Whether we like it or not, the SVID *is* a (de facto) real standard. This situation has precedent, by the way. Every time you mount a magtape, remember that its "standard" format was decided by IBM. -- "Noalias must go. This is | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology non-negotiable." --DMR | {ihnp4,decvax,uunet!mnetor}!utzoo!henry