implementing from 1003.2

John F Haugh II jfh at
Tue May 14 00:11:39 AEST 1991

Submitted-by: jfh at (John F Haugh II)

In article <1991May11.184228.15157 at> ast at (Andy Tanenbaum) writes:
>It was certainly my understanding that a formal standard like an ISO standard
>must contain enough information that you could give it to a Martian who had
>never even heard of, say, UNIX, let alone used it, but was otherwise well
>versed in computer technology, and he/she/it should be able to write a
>conforming implementation.  Stronger yet, if something is not mentioned
>in the standard, even if it perhaps should have been, implementers should
>be free to include it or not include it at their own discretion.

In the strictest sense I am certain you are right.  However, that doesn't
mean anyone is going to buy whatever you produce.  A POSIX-compliant CP/M
is still just CP/M ...

I think the POSIX standards are lacking in detail.  A number of vendors
that I am familiar with are trying to get their non-UNIX-compatible O/S
made POSIX compliant.  Some of them may succeed, but I don't think they
will have the commercial success similiar to what a UNIX-compatible and
POSIX-compliant O/S will.
John F. Haugh II        | Distribution to  | UUCP: ...!!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 255-8251 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) |  Domain: jfh at
"If liberals interpreted the 2nd Amendment the same way they interpret the
 rest of the Constitution, gun ownership would be mandatory."

Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 67

More information about the Comp.std.unix mailing list