Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!samsung!xanth!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!chaos!rja7m
From: rja7m@chaos.cs.Virginia.EDU (Ran Atkinson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Why use U* over VMS
Message-ID: <1990Nov5.191934.19739@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 5 Nov 90 19:19:34 GMT
References: <1380@tharr.UUCP> <69986@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <803@inews.intel.com> <4283@lib.tmc.edu>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Reply-To: Ran Atkinson <randall@Virginia.EDU>
Followup-To: alt.religion
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 22



In article <803@inews.intel.com>,
	 bhoughto@cmdnfs.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>Would a POSIX-compliant VMS fix this?


In article <4283@lib.tmc.edu>,
	 jmaynard@thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>  Uhm, Blair...could VMS be hacked up into POSIX compliance? 
>  If so, then it's a looser standard than it should be...

DEC have publically stated that they intend to make VMS a POSIX
compliant system eventually.  There participation in the various
POSIX committees bears this out.

BTW, I agree with Jay that the POSIX standard is looser than it
should be -- especially in the Shell & Tools area.  The fact
that DEC plans a POSIX compliant VMS without a major overhaul
is an excellent existence proof that the standard is too loose.

Followups to alt.religion or comp.std.unix as appropriate...