[TUHS] Re: Other POSIX Candidates?

[George Michaelson <ggm@algebras.org>]

its weak thinking on my part, but I always understood the POSIX
branding to be a very explicit nod to this being a stamp of approval
on a burgeoning UNIX-varieties ecology.

I do not think VMS, or a DOS derivitive, or PICK was a serious
consideration except perhaps in a post-fact rationalisation.

1 let's invent our own
2 let's not thats too stupid
3 so all the mainframe OS targetting IBM are not really much more than
JCL or what MIT and Stanford do and anyway
4 nobody buys anything but minicomputers now and they all run versions
of unix but
5 porting is a royal pain.
6 ok so lets pick a subset of required behaviour to make C and shell work
7 and for good measure is there anyone here who seriously wants VMS? No
8 ok done. Now, for the next 15 committee meetings, lets have many
fine luncheons
9 <time traveller> Richard Stallman is smelly and people don't like him
10 noted. Thank goodness we came up with POSIX independently as a backronym

On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 1:27 PM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
>
> I'm paraphrasing here but I've read in a few places something to the effect that UNIX was "selected" as the basis on which to build a portable operating system standard, which of course we all know as POSIX.  However, I got thinking on the implications of that phrasing, and have to ask, was there actually a "selection" made picking UNIX over some other candidate, or was it pretty much established from the outset of pursuing a standard that UNIX was going to get standardized?
>
> Another way to put it would be as a chicken and egg, which came first, desire for a portable base system definition that UNIX happened to fit nicely, or the ongoing need for UNIX standardization finding sponsorship by the working groups, IEEE, etc.?  Did any other OS contend for this coveted honor?
>
> - Matt G.