>I don't think MAP_ANONYMOUS is being proposed for standardization >because it's perceived to be of older origin than MAP_ANON or >anything. I'm pretty sure the focus is instead because it's perceived >to have greater 'market share' among present day systems and >applications.
Oh come on, the pussy footing is ridiculous. Let's call it what it is. The group is run a handful of Linux proxies. They do not care if incompatibilities are introduced, as long as they are not introduced for Linux.
