Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ncar!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!longway!std-unix
From: mbj@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: Standards Update, USENIX Standards Watchdog Committee
Summary: No attempt by .4a to kill .4
Message-ID: <655@longway.TIC.COM>
Date: 1 May 90 17:53:44 GMT
References: <1990Apr17.225128.7324@ico.isc.com> <650@longway.TIC.COM>
Sender: std-unix@longway.TIC.COM
Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 28
Approved: jsq@longway.tic.com (Moderator, John S. Quarterman)

From: mbj@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Michael Jones)

> >       The threads subgroup (1003.4A) has attempted to kill the .4 ballot by
> >       a block vote for rejection.  One correspondent says they are doing
> >       this because .4 is no good without threads.
> 
> I'd like to hear an explanation of this assertion.  Certainly, for
> years we've been developing real-time applications without support
> for threads.  They seem like separable issues to me.

Since this came up again I suppose it warrants a reply.  I'd like to state as
an active member of .4a (which makes me an active member of .4 since the two
are one and the same working groups) that I perceive no attempt to kill .4.
Several detailed ballot objections were submitted of which mine was certainly
one.  My objections were motivated by areas of the .4 proposal which I felt
could be significantly improved and responsive suggestions were made.  I know
of others who felt similarly and balloted in kind.  But in no way did I
perceive any linkage between attempting to improve .4 and any alleged
inadequacy of .4 without threads.

Realtime support is good.  Threads are good.  They can be used together.
They can be used separately.  In my view those members of the working group
with realtime expertise have improved .4 and those with threads expertise
have improved .4a.  I perceive no conflict.

				-- Mike

Volume-Number: Volume 19, Number 90