On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Anatoly Y. wrote:

> In comp.unix.solaris Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Ivan Marsh wrote:
> >
> >> Linux has always been POSIX compliant.
> >
> > ROTFL!!
> >
> what do you mean?

Linux isn't POSIX compliant *now*, let alone "has always been".

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:51:05 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Anatoly Y. wrote:
>
>> In comp.unix.solaris Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Ivan Marsh wrote:
>> >
>> >> Linux has always been POSIX compliant.
>> >
>> > ROTFL!!
>> >
>> what do you mean?
>
> Linux isn't POSIX compliant *now*, let alone "has always been".

It's not 100% POSIX compliant... but I'm sure many of the POSIX compliant
OSs have a few areas where they're not 100% compliant. If you believe that
onlt 100% compliance means it's compliant then you're correct. But I
haven't looked into what issues AIX or BSD or SCO or HP-UX have in them...
have you?

--
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
Feingold-Obama '08 - Because the Constitution isn't history,
It's the law.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:17:12 +0000, stan wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: :> some years
> back?
> :>
> :> What's the benefit of a POSIX-compliant 'tail' vs. a Unix-compliant
> :> 'tail'?
>
> : The only POSIX version of Windows (NT 4.0) was written specifically
> for : DEC and was never available to the general public.

> Well, yes and no- the POSIX subsystem was widely available, just not
> generally enabled.
> But it could be turned on in most versions of Windows.

I've never heard of that. Is there anywhere I can read about this? Very
interesting.

--
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
Feingold-Obama '08 - Because the Constitution isn't history,
It's the law.

In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
: On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:17:12 +0000, stan wrote:

:> In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: :> some years
:> back?
:> :>
:> :> What's the benefit of a POSIX-compliant 'tail' vs. a Unix-compliant
:> :> 'tail'?
:>
:> : The only POSIX version of Windows (NT 4.0) was written specifically
:> for : DEC and was never available to the general public.

:> Well, yes and no- the POSIX subsystem was widely available, just not
:> generally enabled.
:> But it could be turned on in most versions of Windows.

: I've never heard of that. Is there anywhere I can read about this? Very
: interesting.

Getting off topic for a LINUX group-- but wander by microsoft.com
for information of how to access the POSIX subsystem in Windows

Stan

: --
: The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
: Feingold-Obama '08 - Because the Constitution isn't history,
: It's the law.


--
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Ivan Marsh wrote:

> onlt 100% compliance means it's compliant then you're correct. But I
> haven't looked into what issues AIX or BSD or SCO or HP-UX have in them...
> have you?

Nope; but then my interest in those OSes varies from non-existant to
mild curiosity (*BSD being the sole entry in this category).

--
Rich Teer, SCNA, SCSA, OpenSolaris CAB member

President,
Rite Online Inc.

Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-group.com/rich

Ivan Marsh wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:51:05 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:

> > Linux isn't POSIX compliant *now*, let alone "has always been".
>
> It's not 100% POSIX compliant... but I'm sure many of the POSIX compliant
> OSs have a few areas where they're not 100% compliant. If you believe that
> onlt 100% compliance means it's compliant then you're correct. But I
> haven't looked into what issues AIX or BSD or SCO or HP-UX have in them...
> have you?

That depends on what 100% means. All OSs have bugs, so it's quite
possible that some bugs would be in the POSIX compliance area. That
would give you a reason to say that an OS with such bug is not 100%
POSIX compliant.

But that's not a useful metrics.

Bugs will be fixed. Eventually. Some bugs can't be fixed without a
rewrite of a largish subsystem in the OS. That kind of bugs (or, rather,
design problems) is a better reason to claim that a particular OS is not
POSIX compliant.

POSIX compliance means that programmers (either those who use the C API
to write C programs or those who use little Unix tools to write shell
scripts) can expect that their POSIX compliant programs would work on
other POSIX compliant OSs without alteration. This is important. It
saves time, money and nerves.

Using the term "POSIX compliant" when you actually mean "modern Unixish
systems" or "recent Unixish systems" just creates chaos and confusion,
because it doesn't mean anything substantial.

POSIX is a specification, just like the TCP specification or HTTP
specification. "Almost, but not quite" compliant is not good enough. It
sometimes means that you have to rewrite a perfectly good program
(because the thread cancellation doesn't work on "almost, but not quite"
OS, for example), even though there were hundreds of people who were
trying to convince you that the "almost, but not quite" OS was in fact
POSIX compliant.

OTOH, POSIX has areas where 100% compliance doesn't mean anything useful
in practice. That is, even though two OSs are 100% compliant, there's no
way to write the code which will surely run as intended on both, simply
because POSIX doesn't require enough guarantees from the OS.

And then there are areas which POSIX just avoids completely (usually
with a good reason). It's not a panacea nor will it ever be. But there
are parts of the OS APIs and utilities which have been standardised in a
satisfactory manner and I see no reason to claim POSIX compliance for
"almost, but not quite" OSs.

--
.-. .-. Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_ \ / _) ceremonial.
|
| dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

stan@worldbadminton.com wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
> : On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:17:12 +0000, stan wrote:
>
> :> In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: :> some years
> :> back?
> :> :>
> :> :> What's the benefit of a POSIX-compliant 'tail' vs. a Unix-compliant
> :> :> 'tail'?
> :>
> :> : The only POSIX version of Windows (NT 4.0) was written specifically
> :> for : DEC and was never available to the general public.
>
> :> Well, yes and no- the POSIX subsystem was widely available, just not
> :> generally enabled.
> :> But it could be turned on in most versions of Windows.
>
> : I've never heard of that. Is there anywhere I can read about this? Very
> : interesting.
>
> Getting off topic for a LINUX group-- but wander by microsoft.com
> for information of how to access the POSIX subsystem in Windows
>
> Stan
>
> : --
> : The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
> : Feingold-Obama '08 - Because the Constitution isn't history,
> : It's the law.
>
>
A bit of history. Some yahoos in the government decided that they would
save money by buying Microsoft, but they had this POSIX standard to get
around. The requirement was put in by the developers who wanted a UNIX
system. The bosses wanted Microsoft, and Microsoft created the POSIX
libraries to meet the governments stated needs. This pissed off many in
the gov., who looked for other ways to specify unix, without naming a
brand or a particular vendor.

--
God's Blessings and love

Deacon Gary Meerschaert <'}}}}><

Madison Heights, MI
Archdiocese of Detroit

Don't give up on your dreams.
Wait a bit and they'll give up on you
and you can start again without all of that guilt.

Gary.meerschaert@gmail.com

In comp.unix.solaris Rich Teer <rich.teer@rite-group.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006, Ivan Marsh wrote:

>> onlt 100% compliance means it's compliant then you're correct. But I
>> haven't looked into what issues AIX or BSD or SCO or HP-UX have in them...
>> have you?

> Nope; but then my interest in those OSes varies from non-existant to
> mild curiosity (*BSD being the sole entry in this category).

oh... I see another book upcoming. Perhaps using your expertise in
Linux(*) to point out how well *BSD complies with POSIX?

(*) the reader should note that an earlier posting by Teer claims that he's
an expert on Linux vs POSIX.

--
Thomas E. Dickey
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net

Drazen Kacar wrote:
> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 15:51:05 +0000, Rich Teer wrote:
>
>
>>>Linux isn't POSIX compliant *now*, let alone "has always been".
<snip>
>
> POSIX is a specification, just like the TCP specification or HTTP
> specification. "Almost, but not quite" compliant is not good enough. It
> sometimes means that you have to rewrite a perfectly good program
> (because the thread cancellation doesn't work on "almost, but not quite"
> OS, for example), even though there were hundreds of people who were
> trying to convince you that the "almost, but not quite" OS was in fact
> POSIX compliant.
<snip>
>

Maybe the OS' various are as compliant as browsers that supposedly
comply with W3c HTML spec... Largely yes, completely No.

Unfortuneately 'essentially posix(W3C etc) compliant' is likely as near
as we'll ever get given diversity of interested parties involved.

b.

Bill Laird wrote:
> Drazen Kacar wrote:

> > POSIX is a specification, just like the TCP specification or HTTP
> > specification. "Almost, but not quite" compliant is not good enough. It
> > sometimes means that you have to rewrite a perfectly good program
> > (because the thread cancellation doesn't work on "almost, but not quite"
> > OS, for example), even though there were hundreds of people who were
> > trying to convince you that the "almost, but not quite" OS was in fact
> > POSIX compliant.
> >
>
> Maybe the OS' various are as compliant as browsers that supposedly
> comply with W3c HTML spec... Largely yes, completely No.

HTML spec leaves a lot freedom to the browser. A browser can be
compliant, but you can't expect the output in different browsers to
match pixel by pixel and that's supposed to be a feature.

Besides, these days, most of troubles with incompatibility lay in CSS
and JavaScript implementations. I haven't heard anyone complaining about
HTML incompatibilities (but I've heard a rant about WML
incompatibilities yesterday).

The point is that bugs get fixed, features get implemented and
incompatibilities get ironed out given enough time (unless there's an
opposing business interest). In the meantime, developers who have to
work with the imperfect implementations would profit from knowing
exactly which parts of a particular OS are not up to the standard.

For example, this web page is extremely useful:

http://people.redhat.com/drepper/pos...on-groups.html

It also briefly explains why POSIX is modular and what that means, so
I'll omit that here.

> Unfortuneately 'essentially posix(W3C etc) compliant' is likely as near
> as we'll ever get given diversity of interested parties involved.

I don't think so. Diversity of interests go directly into the standard,
so POSIX leaves things unspecified when there's no consensus and there are
things for which one can claim to be the examples of a "standard way of
being non-standard".

But most of the things are unambigous and reasonably well implemented in
OSs which claim conformance. There are conformance tests (which can't
catch all bugs in implementations), but I'd expect OSs which have passed
to be feature complete.

Now there's a problem with conformance tests and OSs which don't have a
for-profit company backing, because there's a cost[1], so a lack of a
certificate doesn't automatically mean a lack of conformance. But then,
the OS developers usually know if their OS is feature complete or not
and what's missing.

And when the users push a bit for standard compliance, things get done
faster.

[1] Perhaps there is no cost for the free operating systems. I seem to
remember some discussion about that, but my recollection is hazy.

--
.-. .-. Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely
(_ \ / _) ceremonial.
|
| dave@fly.srk.fer.hr

Drazen Kacar <dave@fly.srk.fer.hr> writes:
> POSIX is a specification, just like the TCP specification or HTTP
> specification. "Almost, but not quite" compliant is not good enough. It

It's more than a specification. There's also a certification process
that The Open Group runs. That's not the case for TCP or HTTP.

> And then there are areas which POSIX just avoids completely (usually
> with a good reason). It's not a panacea nor will it ever be. But there
> are parts of the OS APIs and utilities which have been standardised in a
> satisfactory manner and I see no reason to claim POSIX compliance for
> "almost, but not quite" OSs.

No, not a panacea, but OSes that haven't been through the certifcation
process just aren't POSIX-compliant, no matter what they may aspire
to.

--
James Carlson, KISS Network <james.d.carlson@sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677