Alessandro Selli wrote: > There are other things to consider: > 1) vi is a POSIX system requirement; > 1b) it is thus a Unix universal tool (or is it the other way round? "It's > a POSIX requirement because it's s Unix universal tool"?);
Just to answer your question (not weight in any further) ... The IEEE POSIX standard is just that, a set of standards, usually industry standards documented by contributors that are already 'in use,' with some exceptions where required to resolve conflicts or differences -- although usually more to document them (e.g., BSD v. SysV "ps" options). The same goes for the Single UNIX Specification (SUS). The two groups started working together as the "Austin Group" early in the 21st century, and produce many, bi-lateral standards via their release schedules. That said, LPI couldn't possibly cover even a good subset of POSIX/SUS.** - bjs P.S. I only said prior that Vi is pretty much the solution that is always included in all POSIX (UNIX/Linux) implementations, including minimal installs and recovery modes. E.g., I originally used Busybox as an "objective evaluation" example, but stated it's probably not the only one. Then after further posts by others, I merely pointed out that ViM includes a statically linked, "minimal" build that matches most of the required POSIX Vi capabilities. But I really am now trying to avoid talking about Vi, especially since most of my points are being misunderstood. That could be seen as arguing for Vi inclusion, when my 2 points (again, see my "2 questions") were really my only "points for consideration." I hope this helps contain the discussion, which I want others to have (not myself). -- Bryan J Smith - http://www.linkedin.com/in/bjsmith E-mail: b.j.smith at ieee.org or me at bjsmith.me _______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list lpi-examdev@lpi.org http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
