RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: Help request and introduction

The Open Group created those documents in the first place. They have electronic bits; they've never released them. The business model (how to pay for the work of developing and maintaining those standards) involved people paying to access the docs. The only available enforcement mechanism for

RE: system() and pthread_atfork()

> From: Schwarz, Konrad > Sent: Thursday, January 2, 2020 5:00 AM > To: Karstens, Nate ; > mailto:austin-group-l@opengroup.org > Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: system() and pthread_atfork() > >> -Original Message- >> From:

RE: system() and pthread_atfork()

Both system() and popen() will, nearly immediately, exec() completely new processes. Under many circumstances, the new processes will not interact with objects maintained by any registered pthread_atfork() handlers. Any work those handlers do will, in those cases, be completely wasted as a

RE: Are BSDs evidently more fault tolerant than (say) SysV and Linux?

I do not see any way this is related to the business of the Austin Group, and the entire discussion should just stop. -Original Message- From: Danny Niu Sent: Monday, November 25, 2019 6:15 PM To: Shware Systems ; austin-group-l@opengroup.org Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Are BSDs evidently

RE: Bug 1228: allow shells to exclude "." and ".." from pathname expansions

onstrates that "boring" doesn't apply here. Implementations drive the standard into new content. The standard does not drive implementations into new code. Jason Zions -Original Message- From: Andreas Grapentin Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2019 6:12 AM To: Joerg Schilling Cc: nickstou