Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: UNIX Compatibility | From | Valdis.Kletnieks@vt ... | Date | Wed, 25 May 2011 17:06:12 -0400 |
| |
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. :)
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |