henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (04/24/91)
Submitted-by: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) In article <130193@uunet.UU.NET> pc@hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson) writes: >at this time, we will not go ahead with accepting the proposals as >POSIX projects. > ... > Was the decision of the SEC wrong? No, it was precisely right. IEEE and its minions very badly need to exercise a bit more judgement about what gets pursued as a standard. This was a step in the right direction. It is a travesty to produce a "standard" for each manufacturer's different solution to the same problem, the more so by the "direct ballot" (translation: "do it our way, papa knows best") route. It is far more important to standardize things on which there genuinely is consensus. There is also the entirely separate issue that many people (e.g. me) feel that *any* standard in this area is premature, since we just don't understand it well enough yet. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 38
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (04/24/91)
Submitted-by: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) In article <130193@uunet.UU.NET> pc@hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson) writes: > Was the decision of the SEC wrong? Without knowing their reasoning, it would be impossible to say. I will say that this whole business of "software standards" has gotten way out of hand, and in general resistance to creating an official standard by rubber-stamping products should be applauded. [ Note followups. -- mod ] Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 42