Talk:POSIX

message: From the article: "The term POSIX was suggested by Richard Stallman (not as a compliment) .... POSIX has been backronymed to Portable Operating System Interface". Is this implying Stallman expanded POS as "piece of shit"?  If so, the article should say so explicitly. Indefatigable
: I wondered the same thing. It isn't very clear the way the article explains it. Jdufresne 23:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  At the risk of saying "me too".. I will.  If Stallman did intend for POS to stand for piece of shit, I'd like to know his reasons and have them at least referenced by the article. If not, then the article should be reworded. Workaphobia 04:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh.. or POSitive?  Isn't HURD intended to be UNIX esque (and therefore presumably, POSIX compliant in its design)  Hmm..?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.228.252 (talk) 00:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stallman's intended expansion of "POS" 

message: I don't see why it's there. Other than the acronyms this page seems fine to me. Anyone care to explain? MichaelBillington 00:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it.  I think there is a vast conspiracy to make Wikipedia look like crap by adding such tags to many articles. :P --Pmsyyz 23:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Conspiracy, eh?, perhaps the cabal would have something to say about this. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why the cleanup tag?

message: What about all the other distros and forks of Linux and FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc? 70.111.224.252 02:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other OS'es 

message: Michael, with all due respect, the guys on freenode are hardly likely to have much of a footing in reality.  Linux is not POSIX certified.   See http://get.posixcertified.ieee.org/search_certprodlist.tpl?CALLER=cert_prodlist.tpl
Integrity, on the other hand, actually is, so you should put it back.
:Linux is definitely NOT POSIX compliant, even with glibc and the GNU userspace tools added. It's very simple to make Linux non-compliant, disable Unix domain sockets (it's a kernel option). If anything it might be compliant with 'additional features' and 'added tools'.
: Also interesting that someone added a link to http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/posix/ for Linux, even though it isn't on the lists there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.104.168.108 (talk) 12:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is probably true that Linux is not POSIX compliant, your logic is quite disingenuous: just because some builds are not compliant does not actually mean that all are! —SamB (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux 

message: Without wanting to repeat the two above discussions, but with bringing them together:
* It is strange that Windows is in a listing that appears as being more POSIX compliant than Linux
* The listings of Windows seem to have a lot of exceptions in them ("When using ...", "Include the ....") that seem to be deliberatly vague.
* If only certain editions of Vista support it, then it shouldn't say "Windows Vista" in the list, because having some editions of it be compliant doesn't make the complete "Windows Vista" POSIX compliant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.74.100.50 (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: POSIX was created by the U.S. government (the DoD?) solely for procurement purposes. The U.S. federal procurements needed a way to legally specify the requirements for various sorts of calls for bids and contracts in a way that could be used to exclude systems to which a given existing code base would NOT be portable. So, for example, Microsoft's Windows NT was written with enough POSIX conformance to qualify for some government call for bids ... even though the POSIX subsystem was essentially useless in terms of practical portability and compatibility with UNIX® systems. But see my major rant ;-) It would be nice to find Wikipedia:RS for the first statement though. User:ScotXWt@lk 17:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux and Windows 

message: The list "Fully POSIX-compliant" under "POSIX-oriented operating systems" includes "Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX". However, Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX isn't an Operating System but a software package. Why is this included in a list of Operating Systems?
--193.74.100.50 07:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX is not an operating system 

message: UNIX_System_Services should be added as it is fully POSIX certified.  Is there any problem with adding this to the list?
--Lindy 22:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNIX System Services 

message: The "OS Comparison" external link has outdated information on UNIX as it is since a couple of years available in a free, open source version (Solaris/OpenSolaris) which is not reflected. --Thommym (talk) 20:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. 2003? Removed. --Unixguy (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link need update or removal 

message: Does windows really Editor war#Claimed_benefits_of_vi-like_editors include vi? 121.44.89.26 (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inter-article conflict? 

message: Just a random observation… if you flip the word “god” around, you get an odd spelling of POSIX. Anyone know for sure whether that’s purely coincidental? —Frungi (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't even think you noticing it was a coincidence. Sam Barsoom 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  po6 

message: this is so old, citing it is just pointless. According to it, *BSD costs ~$50, has only good connectivity and can't handle 'huge' systems. 84.191.204.114 (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference #8 

message: MKS is another popular UNIX for Windows system.  I don't know how it rates against POSIX standards. I would guess pretty good, because it would be good marketing strategy. Rhmccullough (talk) 13:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The MKS toolkit is only a set of commands; it does not provide the C API of the POSIX standard.Professor Tournesol (talk) 10:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  MKS Toolkit 

message: The article says Minix is fully POSIX compliant, yet the Minux article says it is a Unix-like operating system. If if was POSIX compliant, I doubt it would be a Unix operating system would it not? I personally think Minix should be removed from the list, but will not do it until I get some feedback from others. 
Dave Drkirkby (talk) 12:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be confusing some facts. There's no reason an OS can't be both POSIX-compliant and Unix-like. C xong (talk) 03:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Minix POSIX as stated - I very much doubt it? 

message: Mac OS X may have passed the POSIX copliance tests but it is not POSIX compliant as it only provides bash-3.x as a shell callable via "sh". Bash-3.x is known to have major bugs (e.g. bash -e is not implemented correctly which e.g. causes makefiles to continue after errors) that make it non-POSIX. 
Mac OS X also comes with GNU make that is known for being not POSIX compliant because it's Makefile parser does not handle space characters correcty and because it calls commands via "sh -c cmd" instead of "sh -ce cmd". --Schily (talk) 09:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, the given source asserts "Full POSIX compliance and UNIX03 certification".  Do you have a WP:RS source in mind, or is this merely a passing comment? TEDickey (talk) 10:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A failing SW build process as a result from missing POSIX comliance is of course a reliable source. And BTW: I believe that you are on the POSIX mailing list where we did discuss the related problems. Should you have a problem to remember this discussion? In our case, "fully certified" obviously does not mean fully POSIX compliant. --Schily (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be referring to a mailing list, which is not the actual deciding body.  Individuals do make comments, some lead to documentation updates.  From observation, it appears that the sponsors get to make the decisions.  An example of WP:RS would be this TEDickey (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry to see that you repeatedly ignore facts. This is not how a scientific discussion works. Apple may have passed the test-suite but this just verifies that the test suite is incomplete and for this reason let's Mac OS X slip though... POSIX compliance means compliance to POSIX. Passing the test suite seems to be easier. BTW: the documents say: "Intel based system - default configuration", this leads to a configuration with a file system that is not POSIX compliant as it is not case sensitive. --Schily (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Lacking a WP:RS, you're still describing your WP:OR. TEDickey (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue to act non-scientific by ignoring a scientific reliable source: a drescribed method to repeat things. This makes dicsussions with you aborious. Is your intention to make WP non-scientific and as a result intentionally wrong? --Schily (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually "scientific" is irrelevant for the point we're discussing.  But in case it helps, you might also read Wikipedia:Scientific consensus and Wikipedia:Scientific standards TEDickey (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

text: To put this to rest, Mac OS X version 10.6 Snow Leopard for Intel based Macintosh computers is UNIX® 03 certified. Sorry, I hate OS X just as much as anyone else but it is certified. --J Grant Fox (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

text: If that link was in the article, it would probably not have been removed.... Note however that an OS that offers bash-3.x as the only possible shell cannot be POSIX compliant, as bash-3.0 has too many bugs and POSIX deviations - regardless of what a test suite is able to find. This has been discussed in a POSIX telephone conference when bash-4.0 was upcoming and at that time, the bash maintainer could be convinced to fix the most annoying bugs by me and David Korn as a result of a long discussion. So any Mac OS X with bash-3.x that might have received an approval slipped thorough as a result of flaws in the test suite. Also note that the default filesystem in Mac OS X is not POSIX compliant and we could not find out how Apple might have configured a system to get a POSIX compliant filesystem.  Schily (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

text: You two are talking at cross purposes. While you mention the difference between RS and OR over and over again, he only cares about the scientific truth. ;) 130.75.117.49 (talk) 12:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Unless I'm missing something, OS X is not fully POSIX compliant. It provides no implementation for unnamed semaphores (created with sem_init()) and no support for POSIX message queues (no mqueue.h).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.21.205 (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: macOS conforms to UNIX03 (from 2003); sem_init and mqueue.h support was not mandatory until the 2008 edition.  Although Apple has continued to certify newer versions of macOS, it is still certifying them as conforming to UNIX03 and not to the latest edition of POSIX. See: http://www.opengroup.org/csq/repository/noreferences=1&RID=apple%25252FXY1%25252F12.html -LiberatorG (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mac OS X and POSIX 

message: The acronym is not defined in the given source.  Also, contrary to the latest edit, it does not have any wording like "based on", but says: 
Perhaps a different source would give the acronym's expansion TEDickey (talk) 21:19, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  expansion of acronym 

message: It would be helpful to have a paragraph or two better explaining what POSIX is in practical terms.  What is it for?  What does it accomplish?  What makes a system that is POSIX-compliant better (or worse) than other systems?   Is there a drive for all operating systems to be POSIX-compliant?  Why or why not?  98.218.195.190 (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Meaning 

message: this edit points to marketing literature.  It is reflected in somewhat older releases in the register of certified products, which has no entry for Lion TEDickey (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 10.8 Mountain Lion is now on the list (as of at least 18 July 2012).  Strange that 10.6 Snow Leopard is present but 10.7 Lion was skipped … 137.165.206.246 (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unix 03 certification versus marketing 

message: The article has "" statements. Something new was published in 2013. Do these statements need to be updated? ~KvnG 15:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is most current 

message: "Richard Stallman suggested the name POSIX to the IEEE. The committee found it more easily pronounceable and memorable, so the committee adopted it." Found POSIX to be more memorable than what? either this whole sentence should be dropped, or expanded to actually matter IMO Bumblebritches57 (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "POSIX" is more memorable then IEEE Std 1003.1 like "Ethernet" is more memorable then IEEE 802.3, though sadly the Wikipedia spreads bullshit again... "Bluetooth" is more memorable then IEEE 802.15.1, and "Firewire" more memorable then IEEE 1394. Sadly IEEE 802.11 has not such "more memorable name", so people call it however they want often WLAN (does it stand for "wave LAN", or really for "Wide area network"?) , and – of course – the Wikipedia makes night shifts to spread half-knowledge and bullshit. User:ScotXWt@lk 07:24, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stallman 

message: Actually a third-party source is preferable to a first-person recollection.  Looking for one, I found this:
file Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005, POSIX – Inside: A case study Jim Isaak TEDickey (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice finding, thank you! By "an environment that supported portability between systems" does he mean API = source-code portability or ABI = binary portability (cf. The Linux Programming Interface)? Sadly the Wikipedia is not very keen on respecting this decisive difference, especially when referring to the Windows API, the regularly mean the Windows ABI. Now how about POSIX/SUS? User:ScotXWt@lk 07:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  IEEEIX/POSIX source 

message: Whether the Wikipedia is used to spread and sow FUD (Fear, uncertainty and doubt) or whether there are just not enough people with the necessary knowledge willing to contribute, or both.
For example, when somebody reads all of the articles POSIX, Single UNIX Specification, UNIX and Unix-like, I doubt he will have understood the following, very simple and strait forward correlations:
# POSIX was created by the U.S. government (or the DOD) solely for procurement purposes; it is NOT an interface designed from scratch in a clean way
# The Single UNIX Specification (SUS) is a set of standards for an OS to be met, to qualify for the brand-name UNIX®.
# The specification described by POSIX and SUS are identical. Cf. "POSIX.1-2008 is simultaneously IEEE Std 1003.1™-2008 and The Open Group Technical Standard Base Specifications, Issue 7" The difference between POSIX and SUS are legal: The Open Group owns the brand-name UNIX®, to get it, you have to certify against SUS, not against, POSIX, since POSIX is a standard specified the IEEE...
# UNIX® is a registered trademark, a brand. It is used for certified operating systems compliant with the Single UNIX Specification.
# Unix-like is a term to describe operating system, that probably would comply with the Single UNIX Specification to be allowed to advertise themselves with the brand-name UNIX, but nobody payed the money to actually make sure they really do... While I personally don't mind people calling Debian, Fedora or Ubuntu "unix-like", the article Unix-like is far to long, if not superfluous. The article Linux is again total crap, its introduction should contain something like
#* The term "Linux" describes the family of Linux kernel-based operating systems, not any one operating system... the base components, such as the Linux kernel (its SCI, system call interface), the glibc, the GNU Core Utilities and some others, make many Linux operating systems "unix-like", i.e. = no money to get certified against SUS and actually get UNIX® brand-name.
#* the term "Linux-based" is braindead. It is either Linux kernel-based or simply "a Linux", another one.
First somebody has to know all of the above. Then he needs to gather references. Then he needs to do contribute to the Wikipedia and write articles, that reflect these facts in a clear language. BUT then, he needs to fight all the hard-working "Wikipedia-people" (let's not call them "contributors", since they don't contribute, they are more like, we are around, and stir the shit) that either willingly spread FUD or are simply fucking stupid. User:ScotXWt@lk 08:39, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  FUD 

message: ...Are both IPs the same person? If so, registering an account would avoid further confusion. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 04:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I was logged in through a proxy and forgot about it; sorry for the confusion. 86.3.108.209 (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

text: Well, the general consideration of professional specifics is secondary here; the primary concern is whether the information presented actually qualifies as synthesis. So in short, you believe we do need to distinguish between POSIX (as a standard) and BSD sockets (as a convention) here, and therefore consider this information synthesis? 86.3.108.209 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Before anyone posits a third opinion...

message: I've changed both the 2008 and the 2017 sections. I went to The Open Group website, and from there to IEEE's and confirmed that the current ( as of 7.22.2018) standard is 1003.1-2017. I know virtually *nothing* about this other than what little I read here and there, so I did not move the bulk of the 2008 section's prose down to the 2017 section, although I suspect that the structure has remained the same (but I didn't confirm that) and, if so, it (the description of the documents involved) should be cut and pasted into the 2017 section, imho. I leave that for someone who knows more about it.75.90.39.77 (talk) 14:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  POSIX - 2017 

message: The Open Group and the IEEE have a POSIX certification program.  The Open Group also has a UNIX certification program.
The Certified Product Registers page on The Open Group website has separate links for UNIX and POSIX certification.
I infer that Green Hills' INTEGRITY was only submitted for POSIX certification, as it doesn't appear on the UNIX Certified Products page; it only appears on the POSIX certified Products page.
I presume that anything that passes the UNIX test suites is POSIX conforming, as the specifications are, as far as I know, the same; I don't know whether it would officially be considered POSIX certified, however.  If not, our lists of POSIX-certified and formerly POSIX-certified systems would need to be fixed.
I'm not sure whether any system that passes the POSIX test suites could fail the UNIX test suites - if the tests suites are the same, they couldn't.  I'm not sure why a vendor would go for POSIX certification rather than UNIX certification, unless, for example, the trademark licensing terms are different, they prefer the POSIX terms, and don't need to be able to use the UNIX trademark. Guy Harris (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  UNIX certification and POSIX certification 

message: My understanding is that the various FIPS-151 standards were based on the POSIX standards, but controlled by the US government (specifically NIST). Should operating systems certified as POSIX-compliant according to NIST standards be listed in this article, or is this purely about operating systems certified according to the Open Group POSIX? Is there a value in this distinction? Vt320 (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  FIPS-151 certification