🚀 go-pugleaf

Submitted-by: rogers@ofc.uucp

In article <558@usenix.ORG> std-unix@uunet.uu.net writes:
>
>In my opinion, NIST is going to go ahead and publish a flawed FIPS in
>the belief that it will drive the IEEE to pick up the pace of POSIX.
>The Government has a burning need for a standard, they find it
>politically unacceptable to use UNIX System V as that standard, and
>they strongly prefer action over waiting for the IEEE.
>
There is something to be said for any action which motivates the IEEE
committees to move a little faster.  This type of action, however, will
ultimately cost the taxpayer when agencies who purchase D9 implementations
have to retool a year later because all the developed applications will
honor the final dot 2 draft.

What I fail to understand is IEEE's continuing propensity to violate the
"prime directive", i.e., their failure to specify common practice.  As 
long as they continue this annoying habit, they will continue creating 
these problems.  It is far better to specify common practice, then work 
through some other forum on getting the vendors to change the functionality 
for future versions.

Attempting to legislate change through IEEE dot n committees may even
work, but guess what?  Instead of Uncle Sam buying something off the
shelf for near commodity prices, he has to buy a "special" for inflated
prices because it had to be especially developed.  Nobody had it, not 
common practice,...  And guess what else?  You, I, Roger Martin, and
the rest of us collectively make up "Uncle Sam."  It's your money, ace.

IMHO, IEEE "management" needs to put their foot down and put an end to
the real political battles - those being fought in IEEE dot n 
committees.  Then NIST would be an ally instead of an opponent.
---
HL Rogers    (hl.rogers@ncrcae.Columbia.NCR.COM)

Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 160