On Fri, 11 Apr 2014, Ralph Siegler wrote: > Well Philip, had we mentioned any POSIX 2008.1 certified or compliant OS > in this thread that would be an interesting point to bring up. But > neither GNU/Linux, OpenBSD, nor FreeBSD is fully compliant. > > On the other hand, Mac OSX Mavericks is 100% compliant and certified, > and per spec has, for example, sem_init and sem_destroy in the header > files.......but lo and behold doesn't actually implement them in the > libraries. This and similar show-without-go has bummed out more than > one code porter.
So you and other porters have taken your concerns about the incompletenes of the UNIX03 test suite to the group that see the money for it? No? Ah, so you're in that group that promulgates an alternate, complete standard with a compliance test suite which porters can rely on! No? So that makes you a programmer that wants the interfaces that didn't exist until POSIX specified them (sem_init), but doesn't like POSIX namespace rules and hasn't worked in POSIX to change them. POSIX isn't an unalloyed blessing, but nilists can whine elsewhere. > Meanwhile, OpenBSD doesn't have the 100% 2008.1 beef stamp on its hind > quarters but will compile and run code having those functions......which > is better? Best for what? OpenBSD doesn't strive to be the be-all and end-all of UNIX-like OSes. We ain't realtime, and our threading and MP are still both bad and ugly in many places, and we don't have lots of the flashy bells that other OSes have. What we have a strong drive to incubate better quality in ourselves and the entire software community by exposing, pushing on, and redirecting bad practices in software development. If you want an OS that has infinite backwards compat and offers all the bells and whistles, look elsewhere. Those are both anathema to OpenBSD and requests for them will be fruitless. Philip
