Submission for comp-unix-microport

[UNIX-UNIX Cp]

Path: tolerant!voder!pyramid!decwrl!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!killer!dcs!wnp
From: wnp at dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.microport
Subject: Re: SVID (was: Submission for comp-unix-microport)
Message-ID: <294 at dcs.UUCP>
Date: 9 Jan 89 13:50:46 GMT
References: <8901082322.AA19653 at handel.TOLERANT> <17801 at gatech.edu>
Reply-To: wnp at dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul)
Organization: DCS, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 30

In article <17801 at gatech.edu> ken at gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
 >>Reply-To: debra at 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 at killer.dallas.tx.us    TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD