Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!usc!nic.csu.net!csun!kithrup!sef
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.next
Subject: Re: Death of OS/2? (was Re: Microsoft OS/2?)
Keywords: OS/2, Presentation Manager, Microsoft
Message-ID: <1991Feb17.113300.5802@kithrup.COM>
Date: 17 Feb 91 11:33:00 GMT
References: <29814@usc> <70447@microsoft.UUCP> <2773@autodesk.COM>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 21

In article <2773@autodesk.COM> glang@Autodesk.COM (Gary Lang) writes:
>And if your new OS is POSIX-compliant as the noise
>from Redmond is starting to get out, you're basically building YAU so
>why not fess up to it?

Just because an OS is posix-compliant doesn't make it YAU.  The goal of
posix (and ansi, mind you) was to be able to have a set of routines, and a
language, such that people could write portable programs for that set.  In
ANSI's case, a portable program can't do a whole lot that most people would
find interesting; currently, even a POSIX-portable program can't be too much
fun, as there is not fun user interface (not even curses, let alone a GUI).

A posix-compliant system is entitled to have all of the extensions and
nicities it wants, provided portable posix-compliant programs still compile
and run properly (using the 'c89' command).

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef@kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.