Philip Reynolds wrote:
> So there's no point in being POSIX compliant? If you think that,
> there's a hell of a lot you could complain about besides two tiny
> little binaries being included in fileutils.
>> If you think that striving for POSIX compliance is a good thing,
> what's the problem?
I think the point he was making is that POSIX compliance in this case
appears to mean adding two more executables with no usefully
distinguishable function from the existing toolset. In practical terms,
I wonder if anyone has ever used either of these in the past? Not having
POSIX specs or a history of same to hand, I am going only on hearsay,
and hearsay is that the POSIX specs were a compromise across many
versions of Unix, where compromise in this case means "include ALL from
column A and ALL from column B" rather than a little of each. As such, I
am not 100% convinced that esoteric and pretty much useless binaries
like link/unlink do anything other than achieving POSIX for the sake of
POSIX, which is a pretty useless goal.
I think you'd sell far more "Solaris Compliant" systems than "POSIX
waider at waider.ie / Yes, it /is/ very personal of me
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!