Timeline for Is Linux considered XSI compliant or largely so?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 9, 2022 at 18:49 | answer | added | Roland Illig | timeline score: 0 | |
| Nov 7, 2018 at 21:33 | comment | added | Has QUIT--Anony-Mousse | In particular, it requires a number of ancient dead APIs and tools, such as pax to be installed that nobody uses anymore. Going for full POSIX support is useless. And really: who cares? Does your car satisfy the horse carriage safety requirements of 1876? | |
| Nov 7, 2018 at 21:29 | comment | added | Has QUIT--Anony-Mousse | POSIX/SUS is dead. Nobody cares about it anymore. Linux is the new standard, because that is what servers use. The paid standard never was truly implemented by anyone. There were always cases where each platform (even when "certified", that is just the sales label that you can buy to appear more important than you are. Like the Intel inside sticker on many laptops...) would deviate from the spec. | |
| Oct 16, 2018 at 3:58 | history | edited | muru | edited tags | |
| Sep 15, 2018 at 16:06 | history | edited | Rui F Ribeiro | CC BY-SA 4.0 | deleted 7 characters in body |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 13:34 | comment | added | JdeBP | This question is overly broad, as it is four questions in one. As others have pointed out, we already have questions and answers dealing with the relationships between the documents and options, and at least one of the four questions here is unnecessary. | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 13:32 | comment | added | JdeBP | The correct place for a right answer to that question is as an answer over there, not in question comments here. | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 13:25 | history | edited | Tim | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 103 characters in body |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 13:01 | comment | added | schily | AFAIR, this was at the end mainly caused by the people behind the GNU tools. | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 13:00 | comment | added | Stephen Kitt | @schily was that for Linux in general (and if so, how was it defined), or a specific distribution? (Or perhaps several distributions...) | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 12:58 | comment | added | schily | @Kusalananda: Your pointer points to a wrong answer: Linux had an offer to get a full (assisted by Andrew Josey) certificaton for one Dollar but after a while told the OpenGroup that they are not willing to become fully compliant. | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 12:53 | answer | added | schily | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 12:51 | history | edited | Tim | CC BY-SA 4.0 | added 96 characters in body |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 12:47 | comment | added | Kusalananda♦ | Re the second question, see Why isn't GNU/Linux SUS v3+ compliant?. | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 12:46 | comment | added | Stephen Kitt | Re your first question, see Is Posix a subset of Single UNIX Specification? | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 12:43 | history | asked | Tim | CC BY-SA 4.0 |