Xenix SVID

[Bill Kennedy]

I cross posted to .xenix because some of the discussion was crossposted.
In .microport I participated in a lengthy discussion about Microport's
slow tty driver and how come Xenix was so much better.  I claimed that
Xenix wasn't 100% SVID and had several email discussions about that
claim.  I'll enclose one of the notes that I got, it's pertinent to what
I'm posting:

>To: bill at carpet.wlk.com.UUCP (Bill Kennedy)
>Subject: Re: Ridiculous(ly slow) tty driver 
>Date: Fri, 10 Jun 88 13:40:07 -0400
>From: Steve Dyer <gatech!rutgers!spdcc.com!dyer>
>
>No, you are misinformed.  The SVID does not address programs like
>"fsck" or "init".  SCO XENIX 286 and 386 both pass the SVID and
>have done so for more than 2 1/2 years.  The first XENIX product
>was essentially V7 on a PDP-11.  It was then, and from there on,
>AT&T code.  I suspect you have bad sources of information.

My first reaction was "I *SAW* those two programs in the SVID!" so I
went and got it out.  I'm referring to Select Code No 320-012 and I
am 100% wrong, Steve (and others) 100% right.  The only thing I was
right about was that init and fsck are in the book, they are, but as
(AS_CMD) entries, Part IV "Administered Systems Extension Definition"
                                                ^^^^^^^^^
My apologies to both groups for acting so bloody certain and maybe
misleading someone by acting certain.  I can't even claim RTFM when
I'm preaching from the wrong part of TFM...  Sorry, just a stupid mistake.
-- 
Bill Kennedy  Internet:  bill at ssbn.WLK.COM
                Usenet:  { killer | att-cb | ihnp4!tness7 }!ssbn!bill