Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 beta 3/9/83; site mot.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!fred From: fred@mot.UUCP (Fred Christiansen) Newsgroups: net.micro.pc Subject: Re: XENIX for ATT PC6300 Message-ID: <93@mot.UUCP> Date: Mon, 11-Feb-85 11:45:20 EST Article-I.D.: mot.93 Posted: Mon Feb 11 11:45:20 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 15-Feb-85 04:18:09 EST References: <8737@microsoft.UUCP>, <92@drivax.UUCP> Organization: Motorola Microsystems, Phoenix AZ Lines: 23 [] From my understanding of the System V Interface Definition, along with its eventual validation suite, and my experience with AT&T's System V URTS (the 68000 System V microport validation, completed almost a year ago): The System V Interface Definition addresses the "fundamentals" of System V (and then there are extensions, a la /usr/group standards). Since these fundamentals form a (large) subset of System V, its validation suite will not encompass all that URTS does. Xenix is only being challenged to pass the System V Interface test, *not* URTS/etc. This latter, URTS/etc., validates conformance to requirements/ specifications above and beyond the Interface Definition. Moreover, the generic microport validation involves more than URTS; it also involves a line-by-line justification of every change to source code. It should be true, therefore, that every validated microport has, by definition, also passed a System V "Interface" test. Nevertheless, Microsoft's commitment to meeting/passing the System V Interface test is a great boost for Un*x standards and the Un*x-based applications software business. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fred Christiansen, Motorola Microsystems, 2900 S Diablo Way, Tempe, AZ 85282 {allegra,ihnp4}!sftig!mot!fred {ihnp4,seismo}!ut-sally!oakhill!mot!fred {ihnp4,amdahl}!drivax!mot!fred ucbvax!arizona!asuvax!mot!fred