att & osf

[Richard A. O'Keefe]

In article <12118 at ncoast.UUCP> allbery at ncoast.UUCP (Brandon S. Allbery) writes:
>As quoted from <258 at quintus.UUCP> by ok at quintus.uucp (Richard A. O'Keefe):
> To summarize:  the SVID is good news for applications developers.
> AT&T _could_ ADD enormous chunks to the SVID without warning
> and that was Henry Spencer's original point.
>A few years ago, people were bitching about the System V standard because it
>didn't include networking.  Now they're bitching because there's a mechanism
>for adding such missing pieces?!
>
>A little less heat, please, and a little more light.  Not to mention just a
>bit more so-called "common" sense.

Why not quote the part of my posting where I said that every UNIX
programmer who seriously cares about portability should have his own copy
of the SVID?

I am not a UNIX vendor.  If AT&T add VMS compatibility to System V Release
58 that's no skin off _my_ nose.  I _like_ the SVID, I'm glad it exists, and
I refer to it a _LOT_.

My posting was a reply to ..... someone from AT&T who denied that the SVID
had ever changed, and that poster thought he was refuting Henry Spencer's
claim that the SVID was not as stable and multilaterally controlled a
standard as POSIX will be.

Yes, let's have some light instead of quoting out of context, and
let's have some common sense:  POSIX will be better for _everybody_
(except AT&T) than the SVID, and a document which is totally controlled
by one company can only be a stopgap as a standard.

As for bitching about networking, I've read the relevant V.3 manuals
several times, and, well, does anyone know of anything printed in English
that explains V.3 networking?