On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 11:36:56 -0400, Kenneth Westerback wrote: > On 12 April 2014 10:47, Ralph Siegler <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2014 22:56:52 -0700, Philip Guenther wrote: >> >> >>>> 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? >> >> best for the particular example I gave. There are others, where system >> gets the POSIX stamp of approval by having .h functions from a list but >> doesn't actually implement them or just partially implements them. >> Just a part of the proofs that 100% POSIX chest-thumping is silly, that >> spec needs some spiffing up before it should be taken 100% seriously. >> >> 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. >> >> Yes, OpenBSD excels at clobbering code that does careless things ; my >> code, new and old, still runs fine on it, thanks. You left out >> emphasis on security, robustness and correctness. That's why I've been >> using and contributing money to OpenBSD project for 13+ years. >> >> >>> 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. >> >> I am not implying any desire for any other backwards compatible >> additions to the project. Because OpenBSD already has those! Has had >> them from day one, and there are good reasons for that. The one who is >> doing something fruitless is you. >> >> >> So, let's see you successfully submit patches to *remove* those >> non-2008.1 features and backwards compatibilities to .1 and even >> before, and fix the collateral damage to the distro that the minus >> diffs cause. I double-dog dare you. > > "the distro"? What the fuck is "the distro"? Has OpenBSD suddenly > morphed into Linux?
that is merely slang for "The Distribution", the OpenBSD project itself certainly uses the longer phrase, and sorry if the slang shorter one connotates legions of marauding penguins to you. > > I recommend against 'double-dog' daring Philip about this (assuming your > goal to to prevent the changes) since he has complete freedom to commit > these changes whenever the mood strikes him. Just my way of pointing out that attempting 100% POSIX compliance would be extraordinarily difficult; the spec has grey areas, incomplete areas, vague areas (hence the silliness of holding it up as a golden benchmark), and would necessitate some drastic changes to the code (to say nothing of the ports). The cost in man-hours would be likely too high a price for six dozen (admittedly gifted) developers to pay; and the result would only be compliance subject to certain interpretations and caveats. There are legacy support in the code that makes the OS very useful and easier to port to, to remove them would have dire consequences to the user community. > > And on that day, many programs and libraries will know what it is to be > roasted in the depths of a POSIX specification. > > .... Ken
