Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!iuvax!copper!hughes
From: hughes@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (larry hughes)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Why use U* over VMS
Message-ID: <70016@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu>
Date: 5 Nov 90 18:47:02 GMT
References: <1380@tharr.UUCP> <69986@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <803@inews.intel.com> <4283@lib.tmc.edu>
Sender: news@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington IN.
Lines: 25

In article <4283@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <803@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@cmdnfs.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>Would a POSIX-compliant VMS fix this?
>         -------------------
>Uhm, Blair...could VMS be hacked up into POSIX compliance? If so, then it's
>a looser standard than it should be...

VMS is scheduled for POSIX-compliance (though I cannot remember the
timeframes).  It's called VIP (VMS Integrated POSIX).

To answer the first question, a POSIX-complaint VMS would not
fix this, to my understanding.  POSIX defines the calling standard
(interface) to the operating system.  However, I don't have a deep
understanding of this, so don't take my word for it.

Any POSIX gurus out there that can give a brief comment?

 //=========================================================================\\
||       Larry J. Hughes, Jr.        ||        hughes@ucs.indiana.edu        ||
||        Indiana University         ||                                      ||
||   University Computing Services   ||   "The person who knows everything   ||
||    750 N. State Road 46 Bypass    ||      has a lot to learn."            ||
||      Bloomington, IN  47405       ||                                      ||
||         (812) 855-9255            ||   Disclaimer: Same as my quote...    ||
 \\==========================================================================//