Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!hsdndev!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: POSIX bashing Message-ID: <15687@smoke.brl.mil> Date: 3 Apr 91 00:51:19 GMT References: <15645@smoke.brl.mil> <670533623.5140@mindcraft.com> Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD. Lines: 24 In article <670533623.5140@mindcraft.com> karish@mindcraft.com (Chuck Karish) writes: >In article <15645@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes: >>(Of course, NIST went ahead and mandated [ that the POSIX.1 job control >>option be supported ] in the FIPS. They always seem to think they >>know better than the technical committees who develop the standards.) >Customers are such an annoyance. They're always demanding things >that the implementors don't think they should have. Nonsense -- NIST/NBS claimed to be representing Federal UNIX users, but what they actually did was prepare a poll on the optional features which a SMALL number of users got to vote on at a workshop, then mandated the items that received majority votes, no matter how ill- advised it might be to mandate the specific features for SOME procurements, and even without concern over whether the particular combination of features was an intelligent packaging. This is the common selection of true "democracy" over "representative republic" that is uncritically accepted by many Americans these days as desirable. (The Founding Fathers were aware of the problems with true democracies, which is why they tried not to establish one.) In fact, as a Federal UNIX user of some note I much prefer to NOT have POSIX-style job control forced upon me, as it makes it less likely that I will be able to acquire better solutions that might not be compatible with such features.