Newsgroups: comp.std.unix
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!uunet.UU.NET!sef
From: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)
Subject: Re: access permissions in 1003.1
Message-ID: <1991Jun3.225808.8518@uunet.uu.net>
Originator: sef@uunet.UU.NET
Sender: usenet@uunet.uu.net (UseNet News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: uunet.uu.net
X-Submissions: std-unix@uunet.uu.net
Organization: Free Software Foundation, Cambridge, MA
References: <1991Jun3.192534.28089@uunet.uu.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 1991 21:44:31 GMT
Approved: sef@uunet.uu.net (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan - comp.std.unix)

Submitted-by: mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell)

In article <1991Jun3.192534.28089@uunet.uu.net> clive@x.co.uk (Clive Feather) writes:

   Let us not. Let us RTFS instead.

Sigh.  RTFS, of course, stands for Read The Source.  Which, of course,
is the way these kinds of issues were once handled in Unix-land.
Later came "experiment", which also confirms the Posix method.  Since
nobody but the FSF seems to want real Posix.1 compliance and ANSI C
compliance in one system, I guess Reat The Standard will not be a good
clue to the behavior of Posix compliance claiming systems.

	-mib

[ Personal comment here:  the one vendor I personally know who had
  qualms about full POSIX compliance did so because of backwards-
  compatibility problems.  I suspect many vendors will have the
  same reservations.  So, how about it:  is full compliance worth
  breaking old programs/scripts?  --mod ]

Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 85