Gold ol' Linux, bad ol' Posix. This time FC5 has broken my shell
scripts by redefining the flags for the 'tail' command. Most notably,
by deleting the second most used flag '+#', used to concatenate a file
beginning at line #.

Are there any systems administrators of more than 19 years old who work
a Redhat or on Posix braindead "specifications"?

George

George Fletcher wrote:
> Gold ol' Linux, bad ol' Posix. This time FC5 has broken my shell
> scripts by redefining the flags for the 'tail' command. Most notably,
> by deleting the second most used flag '+#', used to concatenate a file
> beginning at line #.
>
> Are there any systems administrators of more than 19 years old who work
> a Redhat or on Posix braindead "specifications"?

IMHO.. no. Red Hat doesn't believe that Unix compatibility is
important.

SUSE on the other hand... (if you have to use Linux)...

George Fletcher wrote:
> Gold ol' Linux, bad ol' Posix. This time FC5 has broken my shell
> scripts by redefining the flags for the 'tail' command. Most notably,
> by deleting the second most used flag '+#', used to concatenate a file
> beginning at line #.
>
> Are there any systems administrators of more than 19 years old who work
> a Redhat or on Posix braindead "specifications"?

Not sure about their ages. However, SUSE still believes in
having Unix compatibility. If you need Linux, you can give
it a try instead of Red Hat.

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.misc.]
On 2006-08-24, George Fletcher wrote:
>
> Gold ol' Linux, bad ol' Posix. This time FC5 has broken my shell
> scripts by redefining the flags for the 'tail' command. Most notably,
> by deleting the second most used flag '+#', used to concatenate a file
> beginning at line #.

Perhaps it's "FC5" that sucks, and not "Linux"?

You'd think someone who posts to Usenet using tin would know the
difference. Hell, you'd wonder why someone like that would be using FC
in the first place.


--
"Ubuntu" - an African word meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".

George Fletcher <geflet@not-for-mail.net> wrote:
> Gold ol' Linux, bad ol' Posix. This time FC5 has broken my shell scripts by
> redefining the flags for the 'tail' command. Most notably, by deleting the
> second most used flag '+#', used to concatenate a file beginning at line #.

Is there anything preventing you from replacing that tail(1) with one that
works for you? At work, I have to live with RedHat, while my operating system
of choice is FreeBSD and the Linux I consider the least annoying is Slackware
(busybox doesn't really count). It took me a while to make RedHat mostly
behaved but since I've got it set up the way I want to, I've found more useful
things to complain about.

Thank $deity for POSIX! It means I can run all the software I run on other
Unixes on Linux too - no matter how hard "distribution X" tries to make it for
me.

See my blog rant on the topic:

<http://www.paeps.cx/weblog/2006/Jan/03/>

> Are there any systems administrators of more than 19 years old who work a
> Redhat or on Posix braindead "specifications"?

I'm sure there are.

- Philip

--
Philip Paeps Please don't email any replies
philip@paeps.cx I follow the newsgroup.

Don't ask the barber if you need a haircut.

On Wednesday 23 August 2006 21:46 a poster that claims to be Chris Cox wrote:

> George Fletcher wrote:
>> Gold ol' Linux, bad ol' Posix. This time FC5 has broken my shell
>> scripts by redefining the flags for the 'tail' command. Most notably,
>> by deleting the second most used flag '+#', used to concatenate a file
>> beginning at line #.
>>
>> Are there any systems administrators of more than 19 years old who work
>> a Redhat or on Posix braindead "specifications"?
>
> IMHO.. no. Red Hat doesn't believe that Unix compatibility is
> important.
>
> SUSE on the other hand... (if you have to use Linux)...

I love SUSE, except it not being good for musician type work.

I created a Debian partition with Agnula on hdb3. I chose ReiserFS like I
also have with my main SUSE partition, hdb2. (Hdb1 is the swap area.) I can
see the drive in SUSE but can't mount it. . . so far.
--
Regards,
TimeTraveler

One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel no pain.
- Bob Marley

In comp.os.linux.misc Philip Paeps <philip+usenet@paeps.cx> wrote:
: of choice is FreeBSD and the Linux I consider the least annoying is Slackware
: (busybox doesn't really count). It took me a while to make RedHat mostly
: behaved but since I've got it set up the way I want to, I've found more useful
: things to complain about.

: Thank $deity for POSIX! It means I can run all the software I run on other
: Unixes on Linux too - no matter how hard "distribution X" tries to make it for
: me.

umm- last I heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed
recently what you describe isn't going to fly.

Stan

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

George Fletcher wrote:
> Gold ol' Linux, bad ol' Posix. This time FC5 has broken my shell
> scripts by redefining the flags for the 'tail' command. Most notably,
> by deleting the second most used flag '+#', used to concatenate a file
> beginning at line #.
>

I couldn't believe this when I read it so I went and checked my system
(yes...I'm using FC5, please hold your flames till after the speech) and
sure enough it's true. I can't believe this. I use this kind of thing in
scripting all the time never believing I'd have to worry about it going
away on certain platforms. Can anyone suggest a good way to obtain the
same behavior with another built in command? All I can think of at the
moment is:

awk 'NR>=#' file

As a side note. If I want to get away from FC5 (yes...this issue is
enough to dishearten me) can anyone recommend a flavor that wouldn't put
me into culture shock. I'm not looking for a distro war here, just
genuinely would like to know something that's similar to FC (if that
even makes sense) but maybe more Posix. I've never used any other distro
other than FC. While I'm very familiar with FC, I can't say what my
familiarity with linux in general is due this limited experience. I do
my own sysadmin at home on this linux box though and I don't use GUI's
for any sysadmin, I prefer konsole (xterm) and vi. Thanks.

--
Contact info:
# echo orazrlre2@pbk.arg | perl -pe 'tr/a-z/n-za-m/'

Ben wrote:
> George Fletcher wrote:
>> Gold ol' Linux, bad ol' Posix. This time FC5 has broken my shell
>> scripts by redefining the flags for the 'tail' command. Most notably,
>> by deleting the second most used flag '+#', used to concatenate a file
>> beginning at line #.
>>
>
> I couldn't believe this when I read it so I went and checked my system
> (yes...I'm using FC5, please hold your flames till after the speech) and
> sure enough it's true. I can't believe this. I use this kind of thing in
> scripting all the time never believing I'd have to worry about it going
> away on certain platforms. Can anyone suggest a good way to obtain the
> same behavior with another built in command? All I can think of at the
> moment is:
>
> awk 'NR>=#' file
>
> As a side note. If I want to get away from FC5 (yes...this issue is
> enough to dishearten me) can anyone recommend a flavor that wouldn't put
> me into culture shock. I'm not looking for a distro war here, just
> genuinely would like to know something that's similar to FC (if that
> even makes sense) but maybe more Posix. I've never used any other distro
> other than FC. While I'm very familiar with FC, I can't say what my
> familiarity with linux in general is due this limited experience. I do
> my own sysadmin at home on this linux box though and I don't use GUI's
> for any sysadmin, I prefer konsole (xterm) and vi. Thanks.
>

Problem is, with respect to FC5's tail, it is POSIX.

Assuming my reading of the man page at opengroup is correct:

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/...ties/tail.html

Neither +# nor -# is officially sanctioned.

To get the same affect you need a -n option before the number.

Bleech!!

Le Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:43:27 -0400, Ben a écrit:

> George Fletcher wrote:
>> Gold ol' Linux, bad ol' Posix. This time FC5 has broken my shell
>> scripts by redefining the flags for the 'tail' command. Most notably,
>> by deleting the second most used flag '+#', used to concatenate a file
>> beginning at line #.
>>
>
> I couldn't believe this when I read it so I went and checked my system
> (yes...I'm using FC5, please hold your flames till after the speech) and
> sure enough it's true. I can't believe this. I use this kind of thing in
> scripting all the time never believing I'd have to worry about it going
> away on certain platforms. Can anyone suggest a good way to obtain the
> same behavior with another built in command? All I can think of at the
> moment is:
>
> awk 'NR>=#' file

Is it only (sic) 'tail +#' that fails or would 'tail -n +#' work ?
If so, you can use an alias or a function to get rid of the problem.
That is only if FC5 is mandatory for the user, else there are other
choices, starting from "use the source Luke" passing by "change distro"
and even finish with "use a Unix" ;-) (please, no flame, I'm only joking
there :-)

> As a side note. If I want to get away from FC5 (yes...this issue is
> enough to dishearten me) can anyone recommend a flavor that wouldn't put
> me into culture shock.

Too many to list so I'll just list the two evident possible laps :-)
If you really want a RH family have a try with Mandr(ake|iva) or
whatever their loony marketeers will try next :-)
If you can get rid of the urge to live in dependency hell you may
like Slackware.
Don't get in trouble with big installs, just have a taste with either
some ISOs for Live-CD versions and/or test them with QEmu (ok, VMWare
is another possibility ;-)

> I'm not looking for a distro war here, just
> genuinely would like to know something that's similar to FC (if that
> even makes sense) but maybe more Posix. I've never used any other distro
> other than FC.

Mmm, that's about time to test some others then :-)
Remember, try with QEmu, there's even a possibility to test a few
distros "online" thru oszoo.org FLOZ, I won't post a link here, that'd
be a flamewar opening ;-)
(BTW, the image of an FC5 on FLOZ seems to be a FC4, that's the reason
why I couldn't answer to my first question about 'tail -n +#' )

> While I'm very familiar with FC, I can't say what my familiarity with
> linux in general is due this limited experience. I do my own sysadmin at
> home on this linux box though and I don't use GUI's for any sysadmin, I
> prefer konsole (xterm) and vi. Thanks.

You should *love* slackware and/or BSDs :-)
Good tests !

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:18:36 +0000, stan wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.misc Philip Paeps <philip+usenet@paeps.cx> wrote:
> : of choice is FreeBSD and the Linux I consider the least annoying is Slackware
> : (busybox doesn't really count). It took me a while to make RedHat mostly
> : behaved but since I've got it set up the way I want to, I've found more useful
> : things to complain about.
>
> : Thank $deity for POSIX! It means I can run all the software I run on other
> : Unixes on Linux too - no matter how hard "distribution X" tries to make it for
> : me.
>
> umm- last I heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed
> recently what you describe isn't going to fly.

Linux has always been POSIX compliant.

--
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:
:> umm- last I heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed
:> recently what you describe isn't going to fly.

: Linux has always been POSIX compliant.

ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant.
Some distributions could be.

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

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:47:59 +0000, stan wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: :> umm- last I
> heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed :> recently
> what you describe isn't going to fly.
>
> : Linux has always been POSIX compliant.
>
> ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant. Some
> distributions could be.

Completely? Not 100% no.

You might want to check this out. Issues that need to be addressed to make
Linux completely POSIX compliant.

http://www.opengroup.org/personal/aj...28-07-2003.txt

--
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.

Jon LaBadie wrote:
> Ben wrote:
> > George Fletcher wrote:
> >> Gold ol' Linux, bad ol' Posix. This time FC5 has broken my shell
> >> scripts by redefining the flags for the 'tail' command. Most notably,
> >> by deleting the second most used flag '+#', used to concatenate a file
> >> beginning at line #.
> >>
> >
>
> Problem is, with respect to FC5's tail, it is POSIX.
>
> Assuming my reading of the man page at opengroup is correct:
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/...ties/tail.html
>
> Neither +# nor -# is officially sanctioned.
>
> To get the same affect you need a -n option before the number.
>
> Bleech!!

About 10+ years ago I have been told by our sysadmins that +# and -#
is deprecated (on AIX or HP-UX ?) and should not be used, rather to
switch to the -n option. I continued using the former and never heard
of any problems... - until I read this posting.

Janis

Ivan Marsh wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:47:59 +0000, stan wrote:
>
>
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: :> umm- last I
>>heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed :> recently
>>what you describe isn't going to fly.
>>
>>: Linux has always been POSIX compliant.
>>
>>ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant. Some
>>distributions could be.
>
>
> Completely? Not 100% no.
>
> You might want to check this out. Issues that need to be addressed to make
> Linux completely POSIX compliant.
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/personal/aj...28-07-2003.txt
>

Interestingly, given the gripe that started this thread, Linux/GNU's
implementation of last is *not* given as one of the problems with
POSIX compliance.


Chris Mattern

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:22:34 -0400, Chris Mattern wrote:

> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:47:59 +0000, stan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: :> umm- last I
>>>heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed :> recently
>>>what you describe isn't going to fly.
>>>
>>>: Linux has always been POSIX compliant.
>>>
>>>ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant. Some
>>>distributions could be.
>>
>>
>> Completely? Not 100% no.
>>
>> You might want to check this out. Issues that need to be addressed to make
>> Linux completely POSIX compliant.
>>
>> http://www.opengroup.org/personal/aj...28-07-2003.txt
>>
>
> Interestingly, given the gripe that started this thread, Linux/GNU's
> implementation of last is *not* given as one of the problems with
> POSIX compliance.

Quick, add it to the list!

I think the document is still in draft form.

--
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 Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:47:59 +0000, stan wrote:

:>
:> ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant. Some
:> distributions could be.

: Completely? Not 100% no.

Well, either it is or it isn't. And it isn't.

If you define "compliant" meaning "partially" then
Windows is POSIX Compliant also. Which gets pretty weird since
POSIX is specifically aimed as a unix-like standard so there's
no reason why it should apply to MAC OS or Windows or DOS
or any other OS that isn't unix-like.

Stan

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

Ivan Marsh wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:47:59 +0000, stan wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: :> umm- last I
>> heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed :> recently
>> what you describe isn't going to fly.
>>
>> : Linux has always been POSIX compliant.
>>
>> ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant. Some
>> distributions could be.
>
> Completely? Not 100% no.
>
> You might want to check this out. Issues that need to be addressed to make
> Linux completely POSIX compliant.
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/personal/aj...28-07-2003.txt

That document is over three years old!! I wouldn't be surprised if a
number of the issues have already been addressed.

know code wrote:
> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:47:59 +0000, stan wrote:
>>
>>> In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: :> umm- last I
>>> heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed :> recently
>>> what you describe isn't going to fly.
>>>
>>> : Linux has always been POSIX compliant.
>>>
>>> ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant. Some
>>> distributions could be.
>>
>>
>> Completely? Not 100% no.
>>
>> You might want to check this out. Issues that need to be addressed to
>> make
>> Linux completely POSIX compliant.
>>
>> http://www.opengroup.org/personal/aj...28-07-2003.txt
>
>
> That document is over three years old!! I wouldn't be surprised if a
> number of the issues have already been addressed.
>
>

I notice than some of the issues are annotated that the Linux
or GNU maintainers have decided, "Designed it that way, like
it better that way, ain't changin' it."


Chris Mattern

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 21:48:29 +0000, stan wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: : On Fri, 25
> Aug 2006 18:47:59 +0000, stan wrote:
>
> :>
> :> ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant. Some
> :> distributions could be.
>
> : Completely? Not 100% no.
>
> Well, either it is or it isn't. And it isn't.
>
> If you define "compliant" meaning "partially" then Windows is POSIX
> Compliant also.

Uh... no, not at all. Though MS did write a POSIX compliant version of NT
4.0 specifically for DEC (The company, not the platform).

--
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 Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Ivan Marsh wrote:

> Linux has always been POSIX compliant.

ROTFL!!

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

President,
Rite Online Inc.

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

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?

--
1733869305 Anatoly Y. | TSUNet | phone: +7 (3822) 529696

In comp.unix.solaris Philip Paeps <philip+usenet@paeps.cx> wrote:
>Thank $deity for POSIX! It means I can run all the software I run on other
>Unixes on Linux too - no matter how hard "distribution X" tries to make it for
>me.

Except, evidently, for tail (and other commands and shells).

Clearly POSIX is doing a poor job of defining a compatible command set for
Unix and Unix-like operating systems. Their history indicates a greater
concern with charging large "certification" fees to keep themselves in
business. Didn't they even certify a version of Windows some years
back?

What's the benefit of a POSIX-compliant 'tail' vs. a Unix-compliant
'tail'?

--
Roger Marquis
Roble Systems Consulting
http://www.roble.com/

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 14:51:22 +0000, Roger Marquis wrote:

> In comp.unix.solaris Philip Paeps <philip+usenet@paeps.cx> wrote:
>>Thank $deity for POSIX! It means I can run all the software I run on
>>other Unixes on Linux too - no matter how hard "distribution X" tries to
>>make it for me.
>
> Except, evidently, for tail (and other commands and shells).
>
> Clearly POSIX is doing a poor job of defining a compatible command set
> for Unix and Unix-like operating systems. Their history indicates a
> greater concern with charging large "certification" fees to keep
> themselves in business. Didn't they even certify a version of Windows
> 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.

--
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:
:> 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. Now _why_ one would do so is another issue, given that
Posix is for unix-like OS's, which Windows clearly isn't.

These days it is replaced by Services for Unix, which, like Linux
complies with some parts of Posix but otherwise does its own thing.

If you realy want POSIX compliance then use HPUX or Solaris or the like.

Stan

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