[Info-vax] Anyone interested in another public access system

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <d3085455-bf3f-42ed-b825-7913be6befec at e5g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
	sapienzaf <sapienza at noesys.com> writes:
> On Apr 11, 2:38 pm, billg... at cs.uofs.edu (Bill Gunshannon) wrote:
>> Face it, it is not so much a "Unix" standard as a "common API" standard.
>> And it is not the first time this has been tried.  The last time was a
>> very unix-like API as well.  Should tell you something.
>>
> a) If it's not a Unix standard then why does it include "for Unix" in
> its name?  That seems pretty specific to me.

Cause the guy who got to name it was the holder of the Unix Trademark
and wanted to guarantee control over it.  What better way than to 
include a term no one else can use without paying you money.

> b) What it tells me is that there have been (and are) many variations
> in how Unix and its derivatives are being implemented, and somebody
> was trying to make sense of it all by creating a set of standards that
> they should strive to meet.  

Actually, there were two.  BSD and SYSV.

>                              The goal of POSIX was to allow
> portability of applications from one Unix variant to another.  

The primary goal was to make SYSVID the common API.  Can't be having
something free like BSD as the API, now, can we.

>                                                                It has
> failed in that goal, so it's kind of interesting that you are trying
> to use it to demonstrate something positive about Unix-like systems.

I don;t see POSIX as anything positive.  I only brought it  up to show
that the only real "standard" is Unix based and not VMS based so using
VMS as the "standard" that other OSes shold strive for was just plain
silly.

>> Yeah, because thet refuse to pay some third-party money to tell them they
>> are what they are.  But then once the IEEE gets their hands on anything
>> it becomes all about the money.
> Everything is about the money.  Why else would it be so important to
> hype the "free software" b.s. that is creating all this activity?
> And, it's not just to get a label.  POSIX is about application
> portability.  It's about making sure operating system features behave
> the same regardless of platform.  It's about trying to stick to the
> platform independence claims that shows up in so much marketing gunk.

It's an old idea warmed over, badly implemented and more intent on
making money for something the original owner never could than commonality.

> The reality is that GNU/Linux (and other "free" Unix variants) can't
> meet the standard.  

And why is that?  Could it be because the owner of SYSV set the standard
regardless of the fact that BSD was by far more common and more widespread?

>                     It's very well documented.  It's also kind of
> funny to read some of the stuff that tells you how to write "portable"
> applications on GNU/Linux by trying to avoid the incompatibilities
> rather than actually using the POSIX libraries.

GNU and linux are very anti-BSD.  Choosing instead to ape SYSV.  It has
more to do with the licensing model than technical superiority.

>> I have better things to do with my time.  In any event, I believe VMS
>> dropped POSIX a few versions back so it is really moot.
> If it's moot then why did you bring it up?
> And no, they weren't dropped.

I would have to go back and look, but I thought it was stated right here
that the POSIX subsystem had been removed from the CONDIST.

>> And being as the original argument was what the standard for features
>> offered by an OS should be, just which standard does VMS comply that
>> the other OSes do not?
> You brought up POSIX as a standard to which Unix systems comply, and
> which VMS doesn't.  Or to be more specific that GNU/Linux was closer
> to the standard than OpenVMS.  The burden is on you to stand behind
> your argument.

Why?  First, I couldn't really care about GNU/Linux.  Second, I am
not supporting POSIX, only pointing our that if you are looking for
a "standard" you will find one that is based on Unix, you will not
find one that is nased on VMS.  Therefore, holding up the features
of VMS and saying "anyone who does not offer these features is deficient"
is just plain silly.

bill

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>