home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: decot@hpda.uucp (Dave Decot)
-
- Jeff Haemer writes:
-
- > > Parenthetically, I'll admit to being mystified by the dim view some
- > > folks take of the UPE. I actually put programmer portability above
- > > program portability, since, when I go looking for new jobs I can't
- > > take our software with me, but do want to be sure that I can still use
- > > vi.
-
- Doug Gwyn responds:
-
- > It seems most unlikely to me that you have the option of specifying
- > IEEE 1003.2 conformance when you interview with a prospective employer.
- > I believe that the main point of these standards is to attain improved
- > portability for applications.
- >
- > Besides, why should I have to support both "vi" and "emacs" on my systems
- > when we're all using "sam" instead? It gains me NOTHING (because imported
- > software is not going to require these interactive facilities) and costs
- > me a bunch.
-
- I suggest that you learn the scope and purpose of the UPE (now known
- as the User Portability Utilities Option, or POSIX.2a). It has a
- different focus than the base POSIX.2 specification, and is based
- upon a refutation of what you assert above.
-
- One of the primary motivations for POSIX.2a is the desire to have a
- standard set of utilities that a user can learn once, and thereafter
- be a "portable user" of those utilities.
-
- Prospective employers can already ask employees whether they "know MSWord,
- Lotus, and MacPaint", because those are industry-standard utilities.
- The same treatment should be available for traditional UNIX tools, but
- since there are different vendors of these, a common specification
- is necessary.
-
- Having attended the POSIX.2 committee meetings for quite a long time,
- I quite concur with Hal Jespersen's representation of the SCCS/RCS issues
- and the contents of POSIX.2b and .2c.
-
- Dave Decot, HP
- DISCLAIMER: This message represents only my views.
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 19, Number 106
-
-