Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!umd5!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Svid a standard?
Message-ID: <7690@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 14 Apr 88 23:03:12 GMT
References: <623@fig.bbn.com>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 11

In article <623@fig.bbn.com> rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) writes:
>The only thing that makes the SVID a standard is the unmitigated gall
>of AT&T in calling it such.

Various federal procurement review boards have upheld the use of
SVID as a valid standard, and the federal government is hypersensitive
to issues of unfair competition.

From a practical viewpoint, I find the SVID more useful than the
(so far incomplete) POSIX standards are shaping up to be.

That's not to say the SVID is perfect, of course.