On  2 Aug 96 at 13:29, John Korb wrote:
 
> >   Fixing subsystems or CI commands, etc to work better with POSIX has been
> >   an ongoing activity referred to as "POSIX smoothing".  Latetly we have
> >   not been investing in this effort.  My answer to the above Roundtable
> >   question is that our current plans do not include POSIX smoothing
> >   activities.  Our focus is oriented more towards satisfying SIG requests,
> >   and critical defects than fixing what I would classify as a med. priority
> >   SR.
> >
> >
> > Jeff Vance, CSY
>
> Thanks Jeff, I guess I knew the answer, I just hoped that there were
> plans for incorporating HFS names.  The more I use the POSIX interface,
> the more often I get these "wouldn't it be great if the walls between
> MPE and POSIX were to fall" thoughts.  I realize you can't do
> everything at once and so some items have to wait.  Oh well,
> maybe sometime (MPE/iX 6.0?) HFS names can be added to DSCOPY.
 
As Jeff pointed out, CSY is looking for input directly from SIGs now.
This has helped us provide specific help for a common group of people,
instead of trying to prioritize all the requests from individuals.
(We've all seen this with SIGIMAGE, SIGRAPID, SIGCOBOL and others.)
So, John or whomever is interested, I would suggest that a SIGPOSIX
group be built.  As John points out, users of something (like POSIX)
often go, "Hey, wouldn't it be great if..."  A SIGPOSIX could function
just like a any other SIG:  Meetings, enhancement requests,
prioritization by the members, t-shirts, parties and new list :)  The
information provided to CSY by a SIGPOSIX could be very helpful and
give guidience as to what are the most important requests.
 
Larry Boyd    <[log in to unmask]>
"Each problem solved creates the opportunity to solve the next problem
          that the last solution created." - Richard Pascale
(These opinions are my own and not those of Hewlett-Packard.)