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.)