Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!uunet.UU.NET!sef
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Subject: Re: implementing from 1003.2
Message-ID: <1991May14.040715.15326@uunet.uu.net>
Date: 13 May 91 14:11:39 GMT
References: <132258@uunet.UU.NET> <1991May11.184228.15157@uunet.uu.net>
Sender: usenet@uunet.uu.net (UseNet News)
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Organization: Lone Star Cat Emporium and BBQ Grill
Lines: 28
Approved: sef@uunet.uu.net (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan - comp.std.unix)
Originator: sef@uunet.UU.NET
Nntp-Posting-Host: uunet.uu.net
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net

Submitted-by: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)

In article <1991May11.184228.15157@uunet.uu.net> ast@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
>It was certainly my understanding that a formal standard like an ISO standard
>must contain enough information that you could give it to a Martian who had
>never even heard of, say, UNIX, let alone used it, but was otherwise well
>versed in computer technology, and he/she/it should be able to write a
>conforming implementation.  Stronger yet, if something is not mentioned
>in the standard, even if it perhaps should have been, implementers should
>be free to include it or not include it at their own discretion.

In the strictest sense I am certain you are right.  However, that doesn't
mean anyone is going to buy whatever you produce.  A POSIX-compliant CP/M
is still just CP/M ...

I think the POSIX standards are lacking in detail.  A number of vendors
that I am familiar with are trying to get their non-UNIX-compatible O/S
made POSIX compliant.  Some of them may succeed, but I don't think they
will have the commercial success similiar to what a UNIX-compatible and
POSIX-compliant O/S will.
-- 
John F. Haugh II        | Distribution to  | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 255-8251 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) |  Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"If liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment the same way they interpret the
 rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory."


Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 67