Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!usenix!jsq
From: rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: Standards Update, IEEE 1003.2: Shell and tools
Message-ID: <533@usenix.ORG>
Date: 21 Sep 90 18:29:24 GMT
References: <530@usenix.ORG>
Sender: jsq@usenix.ORG
Lines: 17
Approved: jsq@usenix.org (Moderator, John Quarterman)
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net

Submitted-by: rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz)

Reporting on 1003.2 (Shell and tools), in <503@usenix.org> Randall Howard writes:
>+ patch: This utility differs from many others; its origins are in
>  the public domain rather than in a traditional UNIX variants.  As
>  a result, many people feel that patch is worthwhile, but not
>  mature enough to standardize.
I find this sentence totally amazing.

Patch has been around far longer, and is much more worthwhile, than more than
80% of what 1003 has been doing ever since they expanded beyond dot one.

Can anyone from the committee who holds this viewpoint offer a reasonable
defense of it?
	/r$

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 123