Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!fletcher From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) Newsgroups: comp.std.unix Subject: Re: NIST is not all bad Message-ID: <7565@cs.utexas.edu> Date: 12 Jan 90 20:40:14 GMT References: <7552@cs.utexas.edu> Sender: fletcher@cs.utexas.edu Reply-To: Doug Gwyn Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 28 Approved: fletcher@cs.utexas.edu (Guest Moderator, Fletcher Mattox) In article <7552@cs.utexas.edu> WHITE V L writes: >The current push for the UPE and for 1003.7 may be from NIST, but it originated >from beleagured federal government systems programmers. There are only two relevant differences between the Federal government and other corporate entities with respect to this issue: (1) The Federal rules are relatively rigid, which precludes negotiation between vendor and customer to obtain the technically best solution (when a FIPS is in force). (2) Closed systems are not permitted to the Federal customer even when they make the most sense. These are the product of bureaucracy, which is a perennial government problem. I imagine large corporations such as General Motors also have rather inflexible rules that may in some cases run counter to their own best interests. So far as systems programming in a government UNIX environment goes, it is not radically different from the situation in commercial industry. I am (at times) a Federal government systems programmer, but I take the long view of the industry. Even if something would make my job a bit easier in the short term, I don't want it if it's going to harm the evolution of computing in the long run. Premature or hasty standards have just that effect. Volume-Number: Volume 18, Number 19