Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ofc!rogers
From: rogers@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM (H. L. Rogers)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: SVID
Keywords: migration
Message-ID: <226@ofc.Columbia.NCR.COM>
Date: 8 Aug 88 13:56:43 GMT
References: <4964@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <3395@vpk4.UUCP> <1988Aug2.171126.17906@utzoo.uucp> <3396@vpk4.UUCP> <249@quintus.UUCP> <1275@sfmag.UUCP>
Reply-To: hl.rogers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM (H. L. Rogers)
Organization: NCR Corp, E&M-Columbia, W Columbia, SC
Lines: 14

In article <1275@sfmag.UUCP> der@sfmag.UUCP (D.Rorke) writes:
>                                          Applications written
>to issue n of the interface [SVID] will continue work properly on
>a system which conforms to issue n + 1 (or any subsequent issue)
>subject to a specific evolution mechanism.

Does this not, *by definition*, limit technical advancement by
constraining new technology with *all* *old* technology?  You
can do things like dual or triple "universes," but one can only
carry so much baggage while successfully delivering new technology.
I guess most of us do this anyway for the sake of migration,
saving previous investments, etc.; just trying to find out if others
see this as a technical handcuff.
-- 
HL Rogers    (hl.rogers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM)