alan@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM (12/09/89)
From: alan@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM The P1003.1 "POSIX" standard went thru a 1 year "trial use" period. Was this a useful and productive process? What were the results of the "trial use" period, and how were they incorporated into (or omitted from) the final standard? Does this meet some of the criticism that is currently being brought against 1003 that it is going too fast too soon? P1003.2 and P1003.3 are currently in balloting; P1003.4 will be balloted beginning in January. I have not heard of any "trial use" period for these standards. Should the "trial use" concept be applied to these standards? -- al Volume-Number: Volume 17, Number 98
std-unix@longway.TIC.COM (Moderator, John S. Quarterman) (12/11/89)
From: Doug Gwyn <uunet!smoke.brl.mil!gwyn> In article <471@longway.TIC.COM> alan@s5000.RSVL.UNISYS.COM writes: >The P1003.1 "POSIX" standard went thru a 1 year "trial use" period. Was this >a useful and productive process? What were the results of the "trial use" >period, and how were they incorporated into (or omitted from) the final >standard? Does this meet some of the criticism that is currently being >brought against 1003 that it is going too fast too soon? I think the trial use period was utterly useless. There was not sufficient time for the tentative standard to be implemented and made widely available commercially, and certainly not enough time to make conformance to the tentative standard a keystone of software development or system specification efforts. The "Interim FIPS" also hurt the quality of the standard by forcing completion at too rapid a rate. For evidence of this, consider the drastic nature of the changes that occurred in the proposed standard DURING THE BALLOTING PROCESS. >P1003.2 and P1003.3 are currently in balloting; P1003.4 will be balloted >beginning in January. I have not heard of any "trial use" period for these >standards. Should the "trial use" concept be applied to these standards? No. What I think SHOULD be done is to publish the proposed standards for public review and comment, rather than keeping discussion limited to a small number of people most of whom who wrote the standards. I don't think any standard that has gone through the hasty, unchecked procedures these 1003.n standards are going through should be adopted in any mandatory context (e.g. FIPS). In fact I think some of the 1003.n standards are entirely uncalled for, for example the ones for graphical user interfaces and "transparent network file access". (POSIX file semantics are already covered in 1003.1, and we were careful to consider what reasonable network file systems should be required to do. NFS was not considered POSIX-conforming.) How does one block adoption of an unwarranted standard, anyhow? Can this juggernaut be stopped? Volume-Number: Volume 17, Number 99
donn@hpfcrn.hp.com (Donn Terry) (12/19/89)
From: Donn Terry <donn@hpfcrn.hp.com> The "trial use" standard was broadly misunderstood. According to IEEE rules, it is a full standard, just with a short lifetime before revision must occur. The general perception was that it was some sort of "lesser" or "not yet done" standard (Draft Proposed in ISO parlance has the right feel to it.) Was it a success: yes and no. As a means to get the right people involved and to have the industry understand that POSIX was serious work, it was excellent. As a standard that was (itself) well accepted, it wasn't so good. I believe that it got us to a pretty reasonable final (full use) standard, and that had the trial use not occurred the final standard wouldn't have been as good. I also feel that "trial use" would be a bad idea now for any POSIX standards, as now that the visibility and participation levels are high, that another trial use would only introduce confusion. It depends on who you are talking to whather POSIX is too fast or too slow. It's too fast for many vested interests who for whatever reasons don't see value in having the standards (either "now" or "later"). I get the impression that many of the "standards stifle innovation" believers are in this camp as well. (I won't get into a rebuttal of that issue, but I in fact believe the contrary; standards move innovation ot useful places.) For those who see a value in having them quickly, the standards process is frustratingly slow. (Yesterday is too late for some interests.) Getting the two camps into the same room is entertaining... Donn Terry Chair 1003.1 This comment represents personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the position of either IEEE or my employer. Volume-Number: Volume 17, Number 110