Dear fellow Linux and UNIX enthusiasts, I surely need to add some more words to my joke. My position on the POSIX and Government is that POSIX is the software compatibility standard while the Government has to be concerned with safety. Ok, I would understand if the Government would adopt some of the industry safety standards and make them "Government approved". ARINC 633 could be such an example.
Speaking of POSIX, I, as a Canadian taxpayer, would really like to know what does the Government do with POSIX standard in general. I would understand that some of the departments could adopt POSIX as their internal standard in order to be compatible with each other. I would even completely understand if the Government decide to spend funds reasonably and where possible use OpenSource sofrware and, if the software is modified, upstream the changes to the communities. Though, I do not understand when the Governement makes POSIX approved or not approved because it is not the Government's business to deal with software compatibility, it is the software industry business. Regards, -- Dmitriy Korovkin On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:35:29 -0500 Katie via linux <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dianne, > > You make a great point - I do mention in the talk how Xenix was Unix > compliant, and Euler went through the entire POSIX certification > process. I think that we need a baseline to support portability for all > the operating systems, but it seems that the Government of Canada wants > to focus on software licensing/Open Source Software (given all the > policies, ex. “4.4.3.12 Ensuring open source software is encouraged, and > where used, contributing to the communities whose work is being > leveraged.” https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32601). > Honestly, I don't dislike that approach but it definitely sucks/will > suck for a few organizations. > > -Katie > > On 2025-02-12 18:15, Dianne Skoll via linux wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:02:23 -0500 > > Katie <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> It's interesting that you say that! I would also like insights about > >> the rationale behind this particular decision [to remove POSIX from > >> its standards and policies---dfs] (otherwise it seems like cancel > >> culture as Dmitriy identified). > > > > We have to be careful. Certifications can be used as weapons. For > > example, AFAIK there is not a single Linux distro that is > > POSIX-certified. So demanding POSIX-certification for UNIX-like > > systems would disqualify Linux. > > > > I seem to recall that MSFT had a short-lived "POSIX Subsystem for > > Windows" > > as a way to meet the POSIX requirement on paper. So for a while, we > > were in the position where Windows could claim POSIX certification > > while Linux couldn't. > > > > Regards, > > > > Dianne. > > > > > > To unsubscribe send a blank message to > > [email protected] > > To get help send a blank message to [email protected] > > To visit the archives: https://lists.linux-ottawa.org > > To unsubscribe send a blank message to [email protected] > To get help send a blank message to [email protected] > To visit the archives: https://lists.linux-ottawa.org > To unsubscribe send a blank message to [email protected] To get help send a blank message to [email protected] To visit the archives: https://lists.linux-ottawa.org
