Subject: Re: PAM
To: David Maxwell <email@example.com>
From: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/27/2002 17:22:01
On Tue, Aug 27, 2002 at 07:55:44PM -0400, David Maxwell wrote:
> 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.
Nonetheless, they are standards. So if someone made a statement similar to
Greg's like "PAL, while common, is far from being a real standard", I would
wonder what made them say so.
NetBSD: more reliable than the hardware it runs on.