--
Dmitriy Korovkin <[email protected]>
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:51:34 -0500
Dmitriy Korovkin via linux <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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.
ARINC 653 :-/
>
> 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
>
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
