Re: Bug#34956: ps formatting problem (fwd)
Zack Weinberg writes:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 1999 15:19:09 -0500 (EST), "Albert D. Cahalan" wrote:
>
>>> There is a legitimate argument for this change: compatibility with Solaris
>>> and IRIX, possibly all System V-derived systems. Code that relies on this
>>
>> Make that: Solaris, IRIX, Digital UNIX, and AIX. (basically every UNIX)
>> Considering the above, portable UNIX apps may indeed expect a useful
>> return value.
>
> Last I checked, 4BSD and its derivatives were implementations of UNIX.
Nope, neither in name nor in code.
> This includes commercial operating systems still in wide use, such as
> SunOS 4 and Digital UNIX.
Those are good examples:
Digital UNIX supplies a proper return value for fputs.
(it acts like UNIX too, from "ps -ef" to STREAMS)
SunOS 4 is dead, having been replaced by an OS that has a modern fputs.
I don't think it is wise to design an OS to be like an obsolete one
that has been killed off in favor of a UNIX-based one.
Any other good examples?
>>> behavior is not portable to BSD-derived systems, and glibc has chosen to
>>> follow that lead instead. (In general, glibc chooses BSD behavior when C
>>> and POSIX specify nothing.)
>>
>> Are we a UNIX clone or a BSD clone?
>
> In general glibc chooses BSD behavior when C and POSIX specify nothing.
If that is the case, glibc has no reason to exist. We could just
use the same C library as FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or NetBSD.
Linux has always been the more UNIX-like alternative to *BSD.
Anyone that doesn't like that is running the wrong OS.
>> I see a perfectly good Free Software version of BSD. Actually, there
>> are three of them. I don't see a good Free Software version of UNIX.
>> It would be pretty stupid to clone existing Free Software. If I want
>> to get BSD behavior, duh, I might just get the real thing!
>
> If you want System V, you know where to find it.
Point me to the source code please! Or is that not Free Software?
Reply to: