From: arnold@skeeve.com (arnold@skeeve.com)
Subject: [TUHS] Do Interface specifications such POSIX or the LSB Still Matter
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2018 04:28:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201802161128.w1GBSmsg012148@freefriends.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC20D2PqfaQcHLZ9QCrRxAXM7rYeFBO1nLb2cwoj=sNvu=mYRw@mail.gmail.com>
There was an article about this in ;login: in 2015 if I recall
correctly. Worth trying to find. The issue is a real one.
HTH,
Arnold
Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
> I've send a couple of you private messages with some more details of why I
> ask this, but I'll bring the large question to debate here:
>
>
> ???Have POSIX and???
> LSB lost
> ???their
> usefulness/relevance? If so, we know ISV???s like Ansys are not going to go
> ???FOSS??? and make their sources available (ignore religious beliefs, it just
> is not their business model); how to we get that level of precision to
> allow
> ???the part of the
> market
> ??? that will be 'binary only' continue to
> create applications?
>
> Seriously, please try to stay away from religion on this
> ??? question. Clearly, there are a large number of ISVs have traditionally
> used interface specifications. To me it started with things like the old
> Cobol and Fortran standards for the languages. That was not good enough
> since the systems diverge, and /usr/group then IEEE/ANSI/ISO did Posix.
>
>
> Clearly, Posix enabled Unix implementations such a Linux to shine, although
> Linux does not doggedly follow it. Apple was once Posix conformant, but
> I'd not think they worry to much about it. Linux created LSB, but I see
> fewer and fewer references to it.
>
> I worry that without a real binary definition, it's darned hard (at least
> in the higher end of the business that I live day-to-day) to get ISV's to
> care.
>
> What do you folks think?
>
> Clem
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-02-16 11:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-02-14 20:53 Clem Cole
2018-02-14 22:13 ` George Michaelson
2018-02-16 15:12 ` Clem Cole
2018-02-14 22:45 ` David Arnold
2018-02-16 15:19 ` Clem Cole
2018-02-16 15:45 ` Larry McVoy
2018-02-16 18:36 ` Clem Cole
2018-02-18 1:01 ` Larry McVoy
2018-02-19 15:01 ` Clem Cole
2018-02-16 18:48 ` Steve Nickolas
2018-02-16 11:28 ` arnold [this message]
2018-02-16 15:03 ` Clem Cole
2018-02-16 16:08 ` Steffen Nurpmeso
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201802161128.w1GBSmsg012148@freefriends.org \
--to=arnold@skeeve.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).