From: Rick Moen (rick at domain linuxmafia.com)
Date: Tue 25 Jun 2002 - 23:23:23 IST
Quoting Philip Reynolds (phil at domain rfc-networks.ie):
> Like I mentioned previously in my post, POSIX compliance has helped
> Linux's popularity, especially in industry. Box-checking may not be
> relevant to you, but when businesses look to choose a new platform
> for X (development, mailserver, web server) it allows them quickly
> and efficiently to rule in and out certain aspects of the Operating
> Systems features.
It might be worth mentioning that, as it used to say in the front of
Linux Journal, "Linux aims at POSIX.1 compliance". In the early days
of the Linux kernel, Linus adopted the policy of implementing support
for POSIX calls only as they proved to be needed to write or port actual
real-world applications. Why? Because Linus knew that, while POSIX.1
included and properly specified many vital system functions, it also
incorporated vast amounts of bureaucratic rubbish that might never be
needed -- and that the end result of supporting the whole lot was
Slowaris.
I'd be very surprised if later additions to the kernel team have done
otherwise.
Furthermore, the Linux approach has been quietly vindicated, of late, in
that the IEEE's Austin Group, in deciding what to drop entirely from
future POSIX revisions, have reportedly been following advice from Linux
kernel developers.
-- Cheers, The difference between common sense and paranoia is that common sense Rick Moen is thinking everyone is out to get you. That's normal; they are. rick at domain linuxmafia.com Paranoia is thinking they're conspiring. -- J. Kegler
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Thu 06 Feb 2003 - 13:17:32 GMT