bill@carpet.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy) (06/12/88)
I cross posted to .xenix because some of the discussion was crossposted. In .microport I participated in a lengthy discussion about Microport's slow tty driver and how come Xenix was so much better. I claimed that Xenix wasn't 100% SVID and had several email discussions about that claim. I'll enclose one of the notes that I got, it's pertinent to what I'm posting: >To: bill@carpet.wlk.com.UUCP (Bill Kennedy) >Subject: Re: Ridiculous(ly slow) tty driver >Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 13:40:07 -0400 >From: Steve Dyer <gatech!rutgers!spdcc.com!dyer> > >No, you are misinformed. The SVID does not address programs like >"fsck" or "init". SCO XENIX 286 and 386 both pass the SVID and >have done so for more than 2 1/2 years. The first XENIX product >was essentially V7 on a PDP-11. It was then, and from there on, >AT&T code. I suspect you have bad sources of information. My first reaction was "I *SAW* those two programs in the SVID!" so I went and got it out. I'm referring to Select Code No 320-012 and I am 100% wrong, Steve (and others) 100% right. The only thing I was right about was that init and fsck are in the book, they are, but as (AS_CMD) entries, Part IV "Administered Systems Extension Definition" ^^^^^^^^^ My apologies to both groups for acting so bloody certain and maybe misleading someone by acting certain. I can't even claim RTFM when I'm preaching from the wrong part of TFM... Sorry, just a stupid mistake. -- Bill Kennedy Internet: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM Usenet: { killer | att-cb | ihnp4!tness7 }!ssbn!bill