[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Josh Good]

Hello all.

I was perusing the list of officially branded UNIX systems, according to
the "UNIX 03" specification and tests done by the Open Group, and I
found there listed something called "Huawei EulerOS 2.0".

https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xy.htm

Intriguing, ain't it?

So I went to Wikipedia, to see what it has to say about such a beast.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#EulerOS

And I quote: "EulerOS 2.0 for the x86-64 architecture were certified as
UNIX 03 compliant. The UNIX 03 conformance statement shows that the
standard C compiler is from the GNU Compiler Collection (gcc), and that
the system is a Linux distribution of the Red Hat family."

So, Linux (some variety of it, very closely resembling Red Hat) is now a
"officially branded" UNIX.

I think Mr. Stallman can now say: mission accomplished. GNU *is* now
UNIX. (Linux the kernel might not be a FSF project, but it certainly is
under the GNU General Public License.)

-- 
Josh Good

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Joerg Schilling]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1353 bytes --]

Josh Good <pepe at naleco.com> wrote:

> Hello all.
>
> I was perusing the list of officially branded UNIX systems, according to
> the "UNIX 03" specification and tests done by the Open Group, and I
> found there listed something called "Huawei EulerOS 2.0".
>
> https://www.opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xy.htm
>
> Intriguing, ain't it?
>
> So I went to Wikipedia, to see what it has to say about such a beast.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#EulerOS
>
> And I quote: "EulerOS 2.0 for the x86-64 architecture were certified as
> UNIX 03 compliant. The UNIX 03 conformance statement shows that the
> standard C compiler is from the GNU Compiler Collection (gcc), and that
> the system is a Linux distribution of the Red Hat family."

They would need to mention how they passed the test.

Given that there have been many problems last time, there was a collaboration 
between the Linux people and the OpenGroup:

	http://www.opengroup.org/personal/ajosey/tr20-08-2005.txt

I would guess that this company dod modify software inorder to become compliant.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                  (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Michael-John Turner]

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 04:04:12PM +0100, Josh Good wrote:
>And I quote: "EulerOS 2.0 for the x86-64 architecture were certified as
>UNIX 03 compliant. The UNIX 03 conformance statement shows that the
>standard C compiler is from the GNU Compiler Collection (gcc), and that
>the system is a Linux distribution of the Red Hat family."

Inspur K-UX is similar - a Chinese repackaging of RHEL.

Interestingly, it seems that Red Hat have not gone down the certification 
route themselves - perhaps they don't see any value in it?

Cheers, MJ
-- 
Michael-John Turner * mj at mjturner.net * http://mjturner.net/ 

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Clem Cole]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 915 bytes --]

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 5:06 PM, Michael-John Turner <mj at mjturner.net>
wrote:

> Interestingly, it seems that Red Hat have not gone down the certification
> route themselves - perhaps they don't see any value in it?


​Or in there case, negative value.   RH likes to have the world believe
they are Linux.   They don't want anything lessening their brand.
Certification would make RH < UNIX I suspect which is not what they want.
Certification has always been about the ISV's, and if they can convince the
ISV to test on their implementation directly (and they have) they don't
need it.

It's the old he who has the gold.  It's a crappy attitude and its just what
pisses people off about MS, Apple or in the old days DEC or IBM.
Sad.

Clem​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170313/127ed1b3/attachment.html>

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Josh Good]

On 2017 Mar 13, 21:06, Michael-John Turner wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 04:04:12PM +0100, Josh Good wrote:
> >And I quote: "EulerOS 2.0 for the x86-64 architecture were certified as
> >UNIX 03 compliant. The UNIX 03 conformance statement shows that the
> >standard C compiler is from the GNU Compiler Collection (gcc), and that
> >the system is a Linux distribution of the Red Hat family."
> 
> Inspur K-UX is similar - a Chinese repackaging of RHEL.
> 
> Interestingly, it seems that Red Hat have not gone down the certification 
> route themselves - perhaps they don't see any value in it?

I've wondered about that too. The cost of doing the certification tests
themselves --not including the engineering time to prepare the tests--
probably is about US$ 100,000 so Red Hat should be able to afford it.

My theory is that Red Hat sees more value in *not* passing the UNIX
certification tests. As if thus Red Hat was stating: "Linux is the
new standard, and Red Hat makes it happen. Anything else out there,
is just legacy."

And truth be told, probably most (all?) of the "certified UNIX" systems
on the list have some "Linux compatibility" layer of some kind built
into them. So compatibility with whom is the compatibility that matters?

-- 
Josh Good

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Arthur Krewat]

For the true Linux fan-person, it might be seen as a detriment.  :)

On 3/13/2017 5:06 PM, Michael-John Turner wrote:
> Inspur K-UX is similar - a Chinese repackaging of RHEL.
>
> Interestingly, it seems that Red Hat have not gone down the 
> certification route themselves - perhaps they don't see any value in it?

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Wesley Parish]

That was the thing that tipped me off late in the nineties that Linux was succeeding - only the big 
vendors - and Microsoft - were ignoring Linux, everybody else had Linux-compatibility tick boxes. 
Particularly when FreeBSD incorporated one such item ...

Then when IBM took Linux to the mainframe, it was pretty obvious that it wasn't solely a hobby OS any 
longer.

Wesley Parish

Quoting Josh Good <pepe at naleco.com>:
<snip>
> My theory is that Red Hat sees more value in *not* passing the UNIX
> certification tests. As if thus Red Hat was stating: "Linux is the
> new standard, and Red Hat makes it happen. Anything else out there,
> is just legacy."
> 
> And truth be told, probably most (all?) of the "certified UNIX" systems
> on the list have some "Linux compatibility" layer of some kind built
> into them. So compatibility with whom is the compatibility that
> matters?
> 
> -- 
> Josh Good
> 
>  



"I have supposed that he who buys a Method means to learn it." - Ferdinand Sor,
Method for Guitar

"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." -- Samuel Goldwyn

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Joerg Schilling]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1246 bytes --]

Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:

> ???Or in there case, negative value.   RH likes to have the world believe
> they are Linux.   They don't want anything lessening their brand.
> Certification would make RH < UNIX I suspect which is not what they want.
> Certification has always been about the ISV's, and if they can convince the
> ISV to test on their implementation directly (and they have) they don't
> need it.

RH did make several strange things that did make me wonder whether they are 
really an OSS company, but they have a person working in the OpenGroup core 
team.

This person (Eric Blake) usually helps to connect to developers from glibc, but 
he of course knows about the problems GNU software has with the POSIX standard.

He is one of the active people in the teleconferences and he does not try to 
bend POSIX to follow what is in use on RH-Linux.

I remember several cases where he helped to convince GNU people to make their 
programs POSIX compliant.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                  (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Tim Bradshaw]

On 13 Mar 2017, at 21:35, Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:
> 
> Or in there case, negative value.   RH likes to have the world believe they are Linux.   They don't want anything lessening their brand.  Certification would make RH < UNIX I suspect which is not what they want.   Certification has always been about the ISV's, and if they can convince the ISV to test on their implementation directly (and they have) they don't need it.
> 

Well, in particular a lot of the kind of organisations RH sell to (banks) had experiences with Unix which were not that good: places I worked spent an enormous amount of money on very expensive machines with hardware-redundancy features which were at best marginally functional, and certainly not functional enough to rely on.  These features compared very badly with the things that IBM Z-series machines could do (it might be that the IBM/AIX machines were better in this regard: I didn't deal with them very much).

Of course we'd argue that this is not the fault of Unix, and that's a different discussion.  But the people who have spent 9-figure sums on all this marginally-functional tin that the Unix vendors foisted on them don't look at it that way: they just want something which is not Unix, and which runs on cheap tin.  Linux is not Unix, and runs on cheap tin.

--tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170314/da0c5c7f/attachment.html>

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Nemo]

On 13 March 2017 at 06:15, Joerg Schilling <schily at schily.net> wrote (in part):
> Given that there have been many problems last time, there was a collaboration
> between the Linux people and the OpenGroup:
>
>         http://www.opengroup.org/personal/ajosey/tr20-08-2005.txt
>
> I would guess that this company dod modify software inorder to become compliant.

As they note (http://developer.huawei.com/ict/en/site-euleros ):
Derived from the source-code for the CentOS distribution.  In due
course, I may try it.  If this actually works back to most
distributions, it *may* one day become possible to actually have
Linux-distro-derived code compile on Unix systems.

N.

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Joerg Schilling]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4280 bytes --]

Nemo <cym224 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13 March 2017 at 06:15, Joerg Schilling <schily at schily.net> wrote (in part):
> > Given that there have been many problems last time, there was a collaboration
> > between the Linux people and the OpenGroup:
> >
> >         http://www.opengroup.org/personal/ajosey/tr20-08-2005.txt
> >
> > I would guess that this company dod modify software inorder to become compliant.
>
> As they note (http://developer.huawei.com/ict/en/site-euleros ):
> Derived from the source-code for the CentOS distribution.  In due
> course, I may try it.  If this actually works back to most
> distributions, it *may* one day become possible to actually have
> Linux-distro-derived code compile on Unix systems.

In case people write POSIX compliant code...

BTW: passing the POSIX certification does not verify that the system is POSIX 
compliant.

The Linux kernel does e.g. not correctly implement the waitid() syscall and the 
POSIX validation test suite does not yet check for the deviation.

On a real POSIX system, the following test program passes, but this currently 
only applies to Solaris, SCO UnixWare, recent FreeBSD and recent NetBSD:

/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <sys/wait.h>
#include <stdio.h>
/*
 * Non-standard compliant platforms may need
 * #include <signal.h> or something similar
 * in addition to the include files above.
 */

extern	void	handler(int sig, siginfo_t *sip, void *context);
extern	void	dosig(void);

pid_t		cpid;

int
main()
{
	siginfo_t	si;
	pid_t		pid;
	int		ret;

	dosig();
	if ((pid = fork()) < 0)
		exit(1);
	cpid = pid;
	if (pid == 0) {
		_exit(1234567890);
	}
	ret = waitid(P_PID, pid, &si, WEXITED);
	printf("                ret: %d si_pid: %ld si_status: %d si_code: %d\n",
		ret,
		(long) si.si_pid, si.si_status, si.si_code);
	if (pid != si.si_pid)
		printf("si_pid in struct siginfo should be %ld but is %ld\n",
			(long) pid, (long) si.si_pid);
	if (si.si_status != 1234567890)
		printf("si_status in struct siginfo should be %d (0x%x) but is %d (0x%x)\n",
			1234567890, 1234567890, si.si_status, si.si_status);
	if (si.si_code != CLD_EXITED)
		printf("si_code in struct siginfo should be %d (0x%x) but is %d (0x%x)\n",
			CLD_EXITED,  CLD_EXITED, si.si_code, si.si_code);
	if (CLD_EXITED != 1)
		printf("CLD_EXITED is %d on this platform\n", CLD_EXITED);
	return (0);
}

/*
 * Include it here to allow to verify that #include <sys/wait.h>
 * makes siginfo_t available
 */
#include <signal.h>

void
handler(int sig, siginfo_t *sip, void *context)
{
	printf("received SIGCHLD (%d), si_pid: %ld si_status: %d si_code: %d\n",
		sig, (long) sip->si_pid, sip->si_status, sip->si_code);

	if (sip->si_pid != cpid)
		printf("SIGCHLD: si_pid in struct siginfo should be %ld but is %ld\n",
			(long) cpid, (long) sip->si_pid);

	if (sip->si_status != 1234567890)
		printf("SIGCHLD: si_status in struct siginfo should be %d (0x%x) but is %d (0x%x)\n",
			1234567890, 1234567890, sip->si_status, sip->si_status);

	if (sip->si_code != CLD_EXITED)
		printf("SIGCHLD: si_code in struct siginfo should be %d (0x%x) but is %d (0x%x)\n",
			CLD_EXITED,  CLD_EXITED, sip->si_code, sip->si_code);
}

void
dosig()
{
	struct sigaction sa;

	sa.sa_sigaction = handler;
	sigemptyset(&sa.sa_mask);
	sa.sa_flags = SA_RESTART|SA_SIGINFO;

	sigaction(SIGCHLD, &sa, NULL);
}
/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/

On Solaris, this prints something like:

received SIGCHLD (18), si_pid: 11860 si_status: 1234567890 si_code: 1
                ret: 0 si_pid: 11860 si_status: 1234567890 si_code: 1

On Linux, it prints something like:

received SIGCHLD (17), si_pid: 5434 si_status: 210 si_code: 1
SIGCHLD: si_status in struct siginfo should be 1234567890 (0x499602d2) but is 210 (0xd2)
                ret: 0 si_pid: 5434 si_status: 210 si_code: 1
si_status in struct siginfo should be 1234567890 (0x499602d2) but is 210 (0xd2)

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                  (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Josh Good]

On 2017 Mar 14, 15:14, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> On a real POSIX system, the following test program passes, but this currently 
> only applies to Solaris, SCO UnixWare, recent FreeBSD and recent NetBSD:

So IBM AIX, HP/UX and Mac OS X are wrongfully-branded UNIX systems?

Nice to know.

-- 
Josh Good

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Joerg Schilling]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 876 bytes --]

Josh Good <pepe at naleco.com> wrote:

> On 2017 Mar 14, 15:14, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > On a real POSIX system, the following test program passes, but this currently 
> > only applies to Solaris, SCO UnixWare, recent FreeBSD and recent NetBSD:
>
> So IBM AIX, HP/UX and Mac OS X are wrongfully-branded UNIX systems?

Well, this is your wording...

The background is just that around 1995, The OpenGroup added the waitid() 
interface that has been introduced in 1989 by SVr4. At that time, the OpenGroup 
standard text was correct and interested companies could have implemented the 
interface correctly.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                  (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Random832]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017, at 07:11, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> The background is just that around 1995, The OpenGroup added the waitid() 
> interface that has been introduced in 1989 by SVr4. At that time, the
> OpenGroup 
> standard text was correct and interested companies could have implemented
> the 
> interface correctly.

What was the rationale for including the requirement we are discussing?
Even granting that it *did* (there doesn't seem to be any version of the
standard online early enough not to have the supposed mistake in the
text, present in SUSv2 and Issue 6, of allowing waitid to give an 8-bit
value, so we have only your word) Is it really desirable that the
standard *should* include novel SVR4 features not present in earlier
versions of Unix that do not add any particular value?

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Joerg Schilling]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2717 bytes --]

Random832 <random832 at fastmail.com> wrote:

> What was the rationale for including the requirement we are discussing?
> Even granting that it *did* (there doesn't seem to be any version of the
> standard online early enough not to have the supposed mistake in the
> text, present in SUSv2 and Issue 6, of allowing waitid to give an 8-bit
> value, so we have only your word) Is it really desirable that the
> standard *should* include novel SVR4 features not present in earlier
> versions of Unix that do not add any particular value?

It seems that you do not understand POSIX the right way.

POSIX does not invent new features but rather standardizes existing features 
present in existing UNIX implementations.

The fact that SUS introduced waitid(), obviously intended and correctly 
worded an interface as defined by SVr4 in 1989.

The fact that later versions introduced a different wording has been identified 
as a bug from the standardization process and this bug has been corrected in 
the technical corrigendum 2 of the current standard. You may read this at:

	http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/toc.htm

If you like to understand the real problem, it may be better to give more 
information about the deviations:

-	AIX only returns 8 bits from the exit() code but is otherwise correct.

-	HP-UX behaves similar to AIX

-	Mac OS X returns the lower 24 bits from the exit() code and sign extends
	the result.

	Mac OS X however returns a zeroed out si_pid and si_code and thus it's
	waitid() is completely unusable. I have no idea how Apple could ever 
	pass the POSIX compliance tests.

-	Previous *BSD implementations did and Linux does clobber important 
	information early in the kernel and thus would need to change their 
	kernel data flow to make waitid() behave correctly.

-	FreeBSD did this in July 2015 within 20 hours after reporting

-	NetBSD did this change last year in April within a few days.

-	The Linux kernel people have been informed and replied that there is
	no interest in becomming compliant.

-	The Cygwin people have been informed and replied that they have been
	Solaris compatible in the past but now are bug by bug Linux compatible.


It seems that AIX did introduce it's bug as a result from lately adopting and 
being hit by the bug in the standard. AIX in addition release the currently 
latest release one week before the bug in the standard was fixed.

I cannot speak for the other OS.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.net                  (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/

[TUHS] Does this mean Linux is now "officially branded UNIX"?

[Random832]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2017, at 10:14, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> It seems that you do not understand POSIX the right way.
> 
> POSIX does not invent new features but rather standardizes existing
> features 
> present in existing UNIX implementations.

Yes but what I was suggesting was that this may have been a case of too
eagerly standardizing a new feature that one implementation had added
without considering whether there was a good reason to impose that
feature on other implementations.

I mean, surely not *everything* that SVr4 does is in POSIX. There must
therefore be some rationale for selecting which features, particularly
features that are not already universal, to standardize. So what was the
rationale for including this one?