ken@gatech.edu (Ken Seefried III) (01/09/89)
>Reply-To: debra@alice.UUCP () >Organization: AT&T, Bell Labs > >Thank God no! It is still SCO Xenix, but it has been somewhat extended >to be able to run 386-Unix binaries. It is supposed to become more SVID >compliant too I believe. > Point of clarification: please correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding of SVID is that you are either SVID compliant or you are not. Being 'more compliant' is like being 'more pregnant'. Is this not correct? ...ken
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (01/09/89)
In article <17801@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes: >>Reply-To: debra@alice.UUCP () >>Organization: AT&T, Bell Labs >> >>Thank God no! It is still SCO Xenix, but it has been somewhat extended >>to be able to run 386-Unix binaries. It is supposed to become more SVID >>compliant too I believe. >> > >Point of clarification: please correct me if I am wrong, but my >understanding of SVID is that you are either SVID compliant or you are >not. Being 'more compliant' is like being 'more pregnant'. > >Is this not correct? Well, complying with a standard is really not quite the same as being pregnant. Apart from AT&T's contractual language and interpretation, it is well possible to call something "more" or "less" compliant, or maybe a better terminology would be "closer to" the standard. So, for example, System V is closer to POSIX than Version 7; the merged UNIX/XENIX release is closer to SVID than previous XENIX releases. If you do wish to use pregnancy as an example, a woman in her eighth month is closer to giving birth than a woman in her second week, even though they are both equally pregnant. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD