Why use U* over VMS

[Ran Atkinson]

In article <803 at inews.intel.com>,
	 bhoughto at cmdnfs.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>>Would a POSIX-compliant VMS fix this?


In article <4283 at lib.tmc.edu>,
	 jmaynard at thesis1.hsch.utexas.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>  Uhm, Blair...could VMS be hacked up into POSIX compliance? 
>  If so, then it's a looser standard than it should be...

DEC have publically stated that they intend to make VMS a POSIX
compliant system eventually.  There participation in the various
POSIX committees bears this out.

BTW, I agree with Jay that the POSIX standard is looser than it
should be -- especially in the Shell & Tools area.  The fact
that DEC plans a POSIX compliant VMS without a major overhaul
is an excellent existence proof that the standard is too loose.

Followups to alt.religion or comp.std.unix as appropriate...