Date: Sun, 3 Mar 1996 12:14:12 -0500 (EST) From: Chuck Robey <chuckr@Glue.umd.edu> To: Charles Green <chuck@fang.cs.sunyit.edu> Cc: chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UNIX Specification Message-ID: <Pine.OSF.3.91.960303120821.10333A-100000@skipper.eng.umd.edu> In-Reply-To: <199603030506.AAA21311@fang.cs.sunyit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 3 Mar 1996, Charles Green wrote: > Chuck Robey stands accused of saying: > } > } I wasn't being fascetious. You define what you actually mean by your > } reference to SINGLE UNIX SPECIFICATION, then you can get an answer. > > Actually that was a cut and paste off of > http://www.xopen.co.uk/public/tech/unix/overview.htm > The technical specification for UNIX (as they refer to it :-) > > } I'm > } horrible at names, but I think I've seen yours before; I wasn't sure, so > > Yeah I've been hanging around and throwing my two cents worth every > once and awhile. > > } I gave you an answer I would give to an absolute newbie. You know as > } well as I there isn't any one true unix yet. If this wasn't flamebait, > } and you still want an answer, be more specific and you might get one. > > The truth is, I was fishing to see what kind of answer I would > get. How much and what kind of opinions such a tearse question might > generate. > > } > } My personal gripe is actually the lack of the SINGLE UNIX SPECIFICATION. > } It's generally conceded that this lack is unixland's biggest failing. > } > X/Open seem to think they have one. But again I'm not too familiar > with the politics involved. But I would like to see FreeBSD branded with > the official UNIX name. Rather that UN*X-like... Now that we have all the initial misunderstandings past, you know, I can really agree with you. The reason that I went with FreeBSD initially over Linux was quite specifically because FreeBSD had a standard to cleave to, while it seemed that Linux was ruled by mob order. Now, I'm not innocent enough to say that BSD 4.4 is my ideal standard, written as it is more by example than spec, but it does serve in this instance as a spec. There has been lots of attention given to trying to keep FreeBSD Posix compliant, even in those cases where this might be construed as requiring pathological behavior on FreeBSD's part. I appreciate your URL reference above to the standards WEB page, I haven't looked at it yet, but I will. Are you suggesting that FreeBSD make some additional effort towards satisfying another technical spec? Which one? ========================================================================== Chuck Robey chuckr@eng.umd.edu, I run FreeBSD-current on n3lxx + Journey2 Three Accounts for the Super-users in the sky, Seven for the Operators in their halls of fame, Nine for Ordinary Users doomed to crie, One for the Illegal Cracker with his evil game In the Domains of Internet where the data lie. One Account to rule them all, One Account to watch them, One Account to make them all and in the network bind them.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.OSF.3.91.960303120821.10333A-100000>