Email List: Xaustin-offtopic-lX
[All Lists]

Re: AI 2001-03-05

To: yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AI 2001-03-05
From: Andrew Josey <yyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 10:25:53 +0100
Cc: yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <E14mXZa-0007T2-00@virgo.cus.cam.ac.uk>
(Please followup with this discussion to the off-topic reflector,
to subscribe see http://www.opengroup.org/austin/lists.html )

I think we are already there with the claims of "supporting/complying" to
POSIX --- POSIX compliance is claimed by many vendors today -- usually with
very little understanding in what they are claiming . It thus has little
value anymore.

We need customers to ask to see the POSIX conformance
documentation and demand to see the products on a registered products list.
We need better profiles and documents explaining what to procure and what
to ask for when procuring.
regards
Andrew


On Apr 9, 10:02am in "Re: AI 2001-03-05", Nick Maclaren wrote:
> Vendors will claim POSIX conformance, to comply with the bureaucracy.
> This will be clearly stated, in large letters.  In a footnote, in
> much smaller letters, it will say "With some exceptions.  Full
> conformance is a future objective."
>
> The more scrupulous vendors will document their breaches of the
> standard, but others won't.  If necessary, they will implement two
> modes - one of which is more strictly conforming, and the other of
> which is supported, realistic and useful.
>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>