home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: eggert@twinsun.com (Paul Eggert)
-
- njr@texhrc.uucp (Nick J. Rees) writes:
-
- >I am also very interested to hear from anyone who has had
- >positive experience with VMS POSIX. I have been using it here
- >and can find nothing good to say about it.
- >Problems range from the mundane (incredibly slow, hopeless
- >on-line documentation) to the rather more serious like not
- >being able to use 'ar' unless you have system privilege. I
- >would probably have more complaints than this, except I have
- >not been able to do very much with it.
-
- RCS, a widely used free version control system, was made Posix-compliant
- about a year ago. In the past, VMS users ported old RCS releases to
- native VMS. You'd think that VMS Posix would save these users a lot of
- work, since it should be much easier to port new RCS releases to VMS Posix
- than to native VMS. But so far as I know, nobody has yet ported RCS to
- VMS Posix. I'm not a VMS expert, so I don't know the details, but the
- general sentiment seems to be that if you really want to use RCS under
- VMS, you have to port it to native VMS; VMS Posix doesn't do the job.
-
- There's a big difference between conforming to a standard and supporting a
- standard. In the past, skeptics have suggested that the widely advertised
- Posix interfaces for non-Unix operating systems from DEC and HP (and
- promised interfaces from IBM and Microsoft) are merely smokescreens to
- fool government bean counters who require Posix. Early experience with
- VMS Posix suggests that the skeptics may be right. If so, this is bad
- news for the open systems community. It'll be worse news if Microsoft's
- promised Posix interface for NT also turns out to be useless in practice.
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 29, Number 49
-
-