Xref: utzoo comp.sources.d:6592 comp.sources.wanted:15553 alt.sources.d:1554 alt.sources.wanted:998 news.groups:28343
Path: utzoo!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!twinsun!usenet
From: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,comp.sources.wanted,alt.sources.d,alt.sources.wanted,news.groups
Subject: Re: comp.sources.reviewed -> comp.sources.posix
Message-ID: <1991Mar3.051242.5879@twinsun.com>
Date: 3 Mar 91 05:12:42 GMT
References: <1991Mar2.194702.18667@tridom.uucp>
Sender: usenet@twinsun.com
Organization: Twin Sun, Inc
Lines: 17
Nntp-Posting-Host: burns

wht (Warren Tucker) writes:

	UNIX C and shell scripts, VMS C and shell scripts, Perl
	scripts, awk scripts, MSDOS C, assembler and Pascal, X11
	bitmaps, FORTRAN, Amiga C, standalone man pages ...  Many/most
	of these have no POSIX applicability; let's not exclude 90% of
	reality from the comp.sources."new-thang"

Posix excludes little of what you mention; it's a broad umbrella, or
soon will be.  As for the rest, surely X applications should be posted
in comp.sources.x?  And surely Amiga-specific stuff should be posted in
comp.sources.amiga, and similarly for other vendor-specific stuff like
assembler?

Will comp.sources.reviewed publish programs that don't conform to Posix
but could easily be made to?  I hope not -- it'd mean the reviewers
weren't doing their job.