Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!ucsd!ucsdhub!jack!elgar!ag
From: ag@elgar.UUCP (Keith Gabryelski)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: DEC's suit  (was `Splinter Unix?')
Message-ID: <158@elgar.UUCP>
Date: 26 May 88 23:04:03 GMT
References: <581@tapa.UUCP> <254@sdba.UUCP>
Reply-To: ag@elgar.UUCP (Keith Gabryelski)
Organization: Elgar Corporation, San Diego, CA
Lines: 28

In article <254@sdba.UUCP> stan@sdba.UUCP (Stan Brown) writes:
>In article <581@tapa.UUCP> larry@tapa.UUCP (Larry Somebody) writes:
>> Please don't forget that DEC was eliminated from an ongoing Air Force bid of
>> some $970mil (If I recall correctly).
>
>	DEC protested the Air Force contract you are talking about
>	because it specifiec SVID.  At the time DEC (I believe) a
>	SVID compliant OS that they were selling to other markets,

Actually, DEC is Ultrix which is BSD, right?  I thought DEC protested
because they were not in the spec (not being SVID compliant).  As I
remember, DEC won.  The government had to leave out the SVID compliant
part of the spec.

>	but wanted to make the point that the Govenmrnt (which can't
>	specicfy vendor specific details) couldn't (in DEC's opinion)
>	specify SYSVID as it was vendor specific.

I seriously doubt that DEC would complain if the contract was in their
favor.

>	If I have ny of this wrong please feel free to correct me.

Ditto.

--Keith
-- 
[  Keith   ]  UUCP: {ucsd, cbosgd!crash, sdcsvax!crash, nosc!crash}!elgar!ag
[Gabryelski]  INET: ag@elgar.cts.com              ARPA: elgar!ag@ucsd.arpa