Usenet 1994 January/usenetsourcesnewsgroupsinfomagicjanuary1994.iso/sources/std_unix/v21/148

Internet Message Format | 1990-12-05 | 2KB

From [e-mail]  Fri Sep 28 21:22:12 1990
Received: from cs.utexas.edu by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP
    id AA03871; Fri, 28 Sep 90 21:22:12 -0400
Posted-Date: 28 Sep 90 19:27:10 GMT
Received: by cs.utexas.edu (5.64/1.76)
From: [e-mail] (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: Standards Update, NIST Shell-and-Tools FIPS Workshop
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
X-Submissions: [e-mail]
Date: 28 Sep 90 19:27:10 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]

Submitted-by: [e-mail] (Doug Gwyn)

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:
>Standards let the government avoid vendor-specific requirements like
>UNIX or SVID.  ...
>The Government has a burning need for a standard, they find it
>politically unacceptable to use UNIX System V as that standard, ...

I have to challenge this often-heard (from DEC, for example, who don't
want truly open systems in the first place) rationale.  In fact there
have been more than one major (in the billion-dollar range) federal
acquisition where SVID conformance was specified, and that specification
was successfully upheld in appeals.  Thus the government's official
position would appear to be that SVID is an acceptable standard.

Note that SVID is not the same as AT&T UNIX System V implementation,
although there is clearly a relationship between them.  (But there
also is between UNIX System V and POSIX, ANSI C, etc.)

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 148