Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!ut-sally!std-unix
From: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Submission for comp-std-unix
Message-ID: <7720@ut-sally.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 2-Apr-87 15:20:23 EST
Article-I.D.: ut-sally.7720
Posted: Thu Apr  2 15:20:23 1987
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Apr-87 23:35:53 EST
Sender: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP
Reply-To: phil@osiris.uucp (Philip Kos)
Organization: Johns Hopkins Hospital
Lines: 55
Keywords: POSIX standard outrageous claim
Approved: jsq@sally.utexas.edu (Moderator, John Quarterman)

>From: phil@osiris.UUCP (Philip Kos)

I realize that it's been awhile since I made it all the way to comp.std.unix
in my list of newsgroups, so if I've missed something that makes this all
blow back in my face, would someone please correct me?

I registered for UniForum back in January (actually I *was* registered by
one of our division secretaries, along with everyone else in the division,
although I never showed up there), and since then have been getting pounds
of junk mail relating to using Unix in an MIS/DP sort of environment.  Well,
the most recent piece of trash to come my way was an offer for three free
complimentary issues of a magazine called _Unix_in_the_Office_, apparently
produced by "Patricia Seybold's Office Computing Group".  I'm not really
interested in anything the magazine has to offer, so I was about to throw
it out when the word "Standard" in the flyer attracted my eye.  I read the
paragraph and found the following claim:

	".... Posix is a well-supported vendor-independent standard...."

Golly, I thought to myself.  Have they sped up the procedure that much?
It seems like just a few months since I recall it going into the trial use
period... have I missed the IEEE announcement, and all the discussion
which must have accompanied it?  Or are these people just talking through
their hats?

There are a number of other claims in the flyer which seem to stretch my
capacity for belief, so I am assuming that these people are talking through
their hats.  Also, the three free issues seem to turn into a $495 (and no,
I didn't leave a decimal point out of that number) annual subscription rate
if you don't cancel fast enough.  All in all, this looks like a Fast Buck
production, and I don't think I'd trust anything I read in it farther than
I can spit a weasel.  But it *has* been awhile since I was following this
group, so I figured I'd ask before I go shooting my mouth off about how
these people are talking through their hats...

Can anyone help me out here?



-- 
                              ...!decvax!decuac -
Phil Kos                                          \
The Johns Hopkins Hospital    ...!seismo!mimsy  - -> !aplcen!osiris!phil
Baltimore, MD                                     /
                              ...!allegra!mimsy -


[ The above opinions are those of the submittor.  Readers, please remember
that this is a technical newsgroup when responding (i.e., no flames, please).

The Working Group hopes to get the Full Use Standard balloted by this
fall (1987).  For the moment, there is only the Trial Use Standard.
-mod ]

Volume-Number: Volume 11, Number 2