From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:146::1]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F354125CD4 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 16:03:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC1DC430FF; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:03:48 +1000 (AEST) Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0D2042A9A for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2024 00:03:44 +1000 (AEST) Received: from cwcc.thunk.org (pool-108-26-156-193.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [108.26.156.193]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 45OE3bxi013741 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:03:38 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mit.edu; s=outgoing; t=1719237818; bh=VwdNuDDis8wdu0dcBrEmaQigtTN7VdqZToCDOevhjxk=; h=Date:From:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XNs1iQslXRmmO1napKyn7J5yU8ru5hCwq6tDBKQaCNWwRWEw9b3o91LnRW6PwSsD6 Pj+XAX46dqokI6ghIbs/hhdA6N8QtE71dpzZCu3FgErV4MlvS86R0EVs5sCWUqCubk 6t47hysJg4LLD06MEuyGdFibmoRwGdRZPRyFerNtJK2uBcrSloq0i5f92uOFgAZRi0 RHQd6b+24Sw4+gV6IsheCkU3UyyTupvH6C6IWoM5eoTYOgoFRl80INIT45sxLLVjYW fyd6c0oVCctAw7Ch2Pie+tD3yTYeMxVWAMaMpHdUE2ZUQ8nQOKVNu80RAYqwNBuvsj v+OMTuLhPjeTw== Received: by cwcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 42BC815C00DC; Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:03:37 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 10:03:37 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Stuff Received Message-ID: <20240624140337.GB280025@mit.edu> References: <87jzikt900.fsf@gmail.com> <877cej5gsp.fsf@gmail.com> <87le2xvo4y.fsf@gmail.com> <76644602-7257-4050-b625-050966280e1c@case.edu> <1d0f3aa8-af0c-1ee2-7625-7dc1a825c457@makerlisp.com> <6e98901c-16cd-9a46-105e-8e694353c666@riddermarkfarm.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6e98901c-16cd-9a46-105e-8e694353c666@riddermarkfarm.ca> Message-ID-Hash: VOEFK4NDCLKYKW3HL2635QECKILZ2W56 X-Message-ID-Hash: VOEFK4NDCLKYKW3HL2635QECKILZ2W56 X-MailFrom: tytso@mit.edu X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: tuhs@tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: Building programs (Re: Version 256 of systemd boasts '42% less Unix philosophy' The Register List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 04:15:40PM -0400, Stuff Received wrote: > My opinion is that the authors simply did not have access to other > systems or were not interested. Sometimes, one finds a disclaimer to > that effect. I understand that but I am irked when they claim POSIX > compliance. I get irked because Posix compliance applies to OS's (a specific binary release of the kernel plus userspace runtime environment), and not to applications. Also, compliance implies that it has passed a specific test process, after paying $$$$ to a Posix Test Compliance Lab, and said compliance certificate gets revoked the moment you fix a security bug, until you go and you pay additional $$$ to the Posix compliance lab. Basically, it's racket that generally only companies who need to sell into the US or European government market were willing to play. (e.g., at one point there were Red Hat and SuSE distributions which were POSIX certified, but Fedora or Debian never were.) A project or vendor could claim that there product was a "strictly conforming POSIX application[1], but that's hard to actually prove (which is why there is no compliance testing for it), since not only do you have to limit yourself to only those interface guaranted to be present by POSIX, but you must also not depend on any behavior which specified to be "implementation defined" (and very often many traditional Unix behaviors are technically "implementation defined", so that VMS and Windows could claim to be be "POSIX compliant implementation".) So a strictly POSIX conforming application was likely only relevant for very simple "toy" applications that didn't need to do anything fancy, like say, networking. (Berkeley sockets couldn't be required because AT&T Streams. Oh, joy.) [1] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/basedefs/V1_chap02.html#tag_02_02_01 Can you tell I'm a bit jaded and cynical about the whole Posix compliance/conformance thing? :-) Cheers, - Ted