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=-0.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [50.116.15.146]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAB5626557 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 20:43:27 +0200 (CEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC91C431B9; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:43:24 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-pg1-x52c.google.com (mail-pg1-x52c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1D98431A0 for ; Thu, 27 Jun 2024 04:43:20 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pg1-x52c.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-707040e3017so4850103a12.3 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:43:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1719427400; x=1720032200; darn=tuhs.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=yrC4n6fZlcxSLS8eAIZfWDRzb435PAgPqT+9O14Cy5U=; b=cE8i8M8ULPVpdE1gabgSv2Dkj8lhNm3bEQnRDi8DdsAFRha7MlVm8ksLB1ohvgCXhr UCN4bTs2PrrUmffOVzsZ139COaf+m3HZMchLxu5r1n7JUxa5ZvCFRGGPq6RGEVDvZUPH cU2FLzeZSffHe11dM20bebVu4qRdglRPXPUR6DxmtibaQzz4MJMhWGo5hNkJcveRCStp JeJ9KUOamEFd9A8beT3+OPRSK0YCOoWtgo0l21qCKV3bvI23Z9ekvIYK3Iynatp8bBWa +8JdAsXcZ/1FLI/M0Yz/Dw3E195f/vxmxfLXTaNFgBTUmz78djfDLwDoYcy9hxtxf8zu 9xxQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1719427400; x=1720032200; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=yrC4n6fZlcxSLS8eAIZfWDRzb435PAgPqT+9O14Cy5U=; b=rTRC9Tedpc7ejebDb0nzwovu6fHK2o+sougem1IYu1kniqqyhU0aoakvPuk1OsLc8/ qqG22h1QbbSmljp/NvtE1GAOeaSuwpK6KliB+0xwv/VXCDRyllZlqqG/4B6xY6aENc+t RRJ33gHUmIZeaTAUhj2aMzSTW/YqgQViRX+PaJgSvK7Q+ARvWoQUamjarmoiBC9MMgtf wVrq72RSKOOol1V4GjMKQ8XgLKDhjFrTBShtGnZhXN57hgNj//afIaz4cZiYzhnxDDvX NwS2Q7jU3mVqZC5KNfrP3GfRBvuMfp+ykVP+KTIOWmuUm+JgV5Fmo6Bgjl6I7f89Lk9J v09w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxZjQ0pEB+y+8py8ZOAMEkqCsH9XQCQ4z6aLffoNOOt4uFv4Ei8 A9PPMay3yL7Utt4p+jIi5dUmngWxmUaDB4klewjaLd21ZxBaLuPqF5ccQFEg3hvnUsiqqmRxbAU k+DEjwcmxwm8MKn8QZpNWGOZztj4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGBynX7D1mlwiofWK4E1QP+eRkh6bxNCiPNvFlpla2P8X4nAuWetc9s/f7xTJNKaBDQPE7XUkKObBUxR4z3UxM= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:de86:b0:2c7:af97:ccfa with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2c861297f4dmr10315838a91.10.1719427399986; Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:43:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: James Johnston Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2024 11:43:09 -0700 Message-ID: To: Marc Rochkind Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000064b800061bcf634a" Message-ID-Hash: PQMWJCCLOCSMV5BC3JSW7XZYC7NHDL5B X-Message-ID-Hash: PQMWJCCLOCSMV5BC3JSW7XZYC7NHDL5B X-MailFrom: audioskeptic@gmail.com 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: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: ANSI (C) vs IEEE (POSIX) Standards Body Selection List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --00000000000064b800061bcf634a Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ANSI accredits US standards committees and delegates, both to US and International Meetings. ANSI can vote to accept a standard. While I don't know the issue behind POSIX, it's entirely possible that ANSI accredited IEEE to standardize things. They have done this to many various groups for standards within their wheelhouse. Sometimes this has worked well, sometimes it has worked to the interest of some particular entity, speaking as someone who has spent one to many days hanging out in standards meetings as a "technical expert". On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:35=E2=80=AFAM Marc Rochkind wrote: > I think historically ANSI did languages. > > But, I don't know specifically why IEEE became the standards body for > POSIX. I did participate for a while in the IEEE standards process (not > POSIX, but something else), and I knew it as a large, very active, well > managed organization, always eager to take on new things (such as the thi= ng > that I was engaged in). So maybe that was one reason. > > Maybe a greater reason is that the part of IEEE standards that did > software was chaired by a person from DEC (forgot his name). I'm sure DEC > had a strong interest in a UNIX-based standard, if only to make sure that > it didn't go completely wild and negate DEC's huge head start in selling > machines to run UNIX. > > Marc > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:22=E2=80=AFPM segaloco via TUHS wrote: > >> Good morning, I was wondering if anyone has the scoop on the rationale >> behind the selection of standards bodies for the publication of UNIX and >> UNIX-adjacent standards. C was published via the ANSI route as X3.159, >> whereas POSIX was instead published by the IEEE route as 1003.1. Was th= ere >> every any consideration of C through IEEE or POSIX through ANSI instead? >> Is there an appreciable difference suggested by the difference in >> publishers? In any case, both saw subsequent adoption by ISO/IEC, so th= e >> track to an international standard seems to lead to the same organizatio= ns. >> >> - Matt G. >> > > > -- > *My new email address is mrochkind@gmail.com * > --=20 James D. (jj) Johnston Chief Scientist, Immersion Networks --00000000000064b800061bcf634a Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
ANSI accredits US standards committees and delegates,= both to US and International Meetings.

ANSI can vote to accep= t a standard.=C2=A0=C2=A0 While I don't know the issue behind POSIX, it= 's entirely possible that ANSI accredited IEEE to standardize things. T= hey have done this to many various groups for standards within their wheelh= ouse.=C2=A0 Sometimes this has worked well, sometimes it has worked to the = interest of some particular entity, speaking as someone who has spent one t= o many days hanging out in standards meetings as a "technical expert&q= uot;.=C2=A0

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 11:35=E2=80=AFAM Marc Rochkind <= mrochkind@gmail.com> wrote:
= I think historically ANSI did languages.

But, I don'= t know specifically why IEEE became the standards body for POSIX. I did par= ticipate for a while in the IEEE standards process (not POSIX, but somethin= g else), and I knew it as a large, very active, well managed organization, = always eager to take on new things (such as the thing that I was engaged in= ). So maybe that was one reason.

Maybe a greater r= eason is that the part of IEEE standards that did software was chaired by a= person from DEC (forgot his name). I'm sure DEC had a strong interest = in a UNIX-based standard, if only to make sure that it didn't go comple= tely wild and negate DEC's huge head start in selling machines to run U= NIX.

Marc

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 12:22=E2=80= =AFPM segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
Good morning, I was wondering if anyone has the scoop on t= he rationale behind the selection of standards bodies for the publication o= f UNIX and UNIX-adjacent standards.=C2=A0 C was published via the ANSI rout= e as X3.159, whereas POSIX was instead published by the IEEE route as 1003.= 1.=C2=A0 Was there every any consideration of C through IEEE or POSIX throu= gh ANSI instead?=C2=A0 Is there an appreciable difference suggested by the = difference in publishers?=C2=A0 In any case, both saw subsequent adoption b= y ISO/IEC, so the track to an international standard seems to lead to the s= ame organizations.

- Matt G.


--
My new email address is mrochkind@gmail.com


--
James D. (jj) Johnston

Chief Scientist, I= mmersion Networks
--00000000000064b800061bcf634a--