home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
- Path: sparky!uunet!think.com!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!ra!atkinson
- From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson)
- Subject: Re: New to HPs...Thinking about buying one...need advice...
- Message-ID: <BxK771.Er8@ra.nrl.navy.mil>
- Sender: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil
- Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, DC
- References: <BxG7DF.76E@ra.nrl.navy.mil> <721483576.8584@minster.york.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:01:48 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <721483576.8584@minster.york.ac.uk> aaron@minster.york.ac.uk writes:
-
- >The hardware is good but HP-UX is neither one thing nor the other,
- >and certainly not as easy to port things onto as it should be. Also
- >it annoys me that HP-UX don't send me patches when they fix one pf
- >the many bugs, or the response centre staff seem ignorant of its
- >existence even when you quote the number at them.
-
- Agreed.
-
- To be quite blunt, I'd like to see HP migrate HPUX to be fully
- System V Interface Definition (SVID), Version 3 compliant. HPUX is
- currently fully compliant with SVID 2.0 which dates back to the
- mid-1980s. The most recent OSF operating system specification is SVID
- 3 compliant as is System V Release 4, so it is not closed or
- proprietary (heck, its the only case I can find where OSF and USL
- agreed on something). I don't care whether HP rolls its own kernel,
- uses the OSF kernel, or goes with an SVR4 kernel.
-
- The POSIX standards are often not sufficient for real portability
- and HP Marketing uses standards as a defense against doing The Right
- Thing. POSIX compliance is necessary but not sufficient.
-
- Ran
- atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil
-
-