Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!uunet.UU.NET!sef From: richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Re: Opinions on prospective standards sought Message-ID: <130292@uunet.UU.NET> Date: 24 Apr 91 14:15:13 GMT Article-I.D.: uunet.130292 References: <130193@uunet.UU.NET> Sender: usenet@uunet.UU.NET Reply-To: richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 35 Approved: sef@uunet.uu.net (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan - comp.std.unix) Nntp-Posting-Host: uunet.uu.net X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net Originator: sef@uunet.UU.NET Submitted-by: richard@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) In article <130193@uunet.UU.NET> pc@hillside.co.uk (Peter Collinson) writes: >OSF had sent in a request to be allowed to create a standard based on >Motif. >Sun sent in a PAR for a standard based on OpenLook. >The final decision of the SEC (Sponsor Executive Committee), the body >charged with making a decision about the PARs, was effectively to say: >at this time, we will not go ahead with accepting the proposals as >POSIX projects. > Was the decision of the SEC wrong? I am delighted to hear of this sensible decision. I cannot see any need for either Open Look or Motif to be standardised. Both are controlled by groups who should be quite capable of ensuring portability. It is of course in the interests of their respective proponents to try and make each "more standard" than the other, but it is not in the interests of users. Eliminating the inconvenient differences and codifying the common ground between variants of Unix on the other hand is a worthwhile project that if done well will be of enormous benefit to users. -- Richard -- Richard Tobin, JANET: R.Tobin@uk.ac.ed AI Applications Institute, ARPA: R.Tobin%uk.ac.ed@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Edinburgh University. UUCP: ...!ukc!ed.ac.uk!R.Tobin Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 40