Subject: Re: PAM
To: None <email@example.com>
From: David Maxwell <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/27/2002 19:55:44
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 04:50:52PM -0700, email@example.com wrote:
> > > - PAM is standard.
> > "Standard"? I don't think so. It's common, but it's far from being a
> > real standard. I wonder if the GNU/Linux implementation can even load
> > and use a binary Solaris plugin (assuming it's for the same target CPU).
> PAM is a standard. http://www.opengroup.org/tech/rfc/mirror-rfc/rfc86.0.txt
From a standards body which I don't believe the NetBSD project has taken
a complience stance on.
SECAM and PAL are official standards too. That doesn't mean it would be
appropriate (or sensible) for me to buy such equipment, rather than
NTSC, since I'm in North America.
David Maxwell, firstname.lastname@example.orgemail@example.com -->
(About an Amiga rendering landscapes) It's not thinking, it's being artistic!
- Jamie Woods