Re: UNIX Compatibility

[Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1026 bytes --]

On Wed, 25 May 2011 10:36:02 EDT, "Ted Ts'o" said:

> And of course, the supreme irony is that if your OS is encumbered with
> AT&T copyrighted code, you can use the Unix trademark even if you are
> not conformant to the Single Unix Specification.  (There's an escape
> clause for AT&T derived-Unix systems, which are automatically "Unix"
> even if they fail the SUS.)
> 
> Given all of that, what _use_ is the Single Unix Specification at this
> point?  What's the _point_?

We're pretty shameless in mugging other operating systems for good new ideas
(witness the recent patches stealing SEEK_HOLE and SEEK_DATA from Solaris), but
most of the time, the neat stuff like that isn't part of SUS anyhow, because only
one or two Unix-derived systems implemented the function.

Single most useful thing left in SUS?  The few places we're *really* divergent from SUS,
we can usually go back and read the SUS spec for the function in question and remind
ourself that yes, we diverged for a reason - the spec was on total crack. :)


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 227 bytes --]