Talk:Single UNIX Specification

message: Would it be possible for the article to mention the history of the drafting of the standard, including major changes that went into each version (for example, at some point the separate "UNIX environment" (shell) standard was rolled into mainline POSIX)?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.232 (talk • contribs) 07:39, January 11, 2005
:"Shell and Utilities - a list of utilities and a description of the shell, sh."
:Links to a history of the Bourne shell with little info on other shells and NO utilities.
:Perhaps someone could add better links. Thank you.
:DGerman (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Is the standard shell for POSIX really "Bourne"?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.10.109 (talk • contribs) 13:51, March 6, 2005
:I do think so -> Please check that at the opengroup's site: Posix 3 aka Unix 3 are freely readable there. But: What does the Term "standard shell" mean? - M-e-leypold 16:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm augmenting my previous answer: Yes, sh is the "standard shell. Corresponding entry in Unix03 = Posix3 says "sh - shell, the standard command language interpreter". "Standard" means: (a) This shell must be in a conformant system. (b) It's the only shell that must be in a conformant system. - Regards, M-e-leypold 16:38, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard shell 

message: "Most" Linux vendors don't certify?  This should be removed ... has *any* Linux distro *ever* been certified and sold as a UNIX system?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobart (talk • contribs) 12:01, June 4, 2005
: AFAIK: UNIFIX. Do they still certify? -> I don't know. - M-e-leypold 16:29, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linux vendors 

message: The SUS shell, or POSIX shell, includes features the Bourne shell doesn't have, including off the top of my head job control, command line editing, and the $(command) parallel to the `command` construct. It's perhaps unfortunate that it's still called "sh".
In Solaris, /usr/bin/sh will (or did) call the Bourne shell, while /usr/bin/xpg4/sh links to /usr/bin/ksh.  PhGustaf (talk) 07:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shell Clarification 

message: I was deeply involved with the Solaris 2.5.1 PowerPC certification.  IBM and Motorola, among others, made computers that used PC memory and controller cards, but PowerPC processors.  They didn't make them for long.  For complicated reasons, TOG required that we get the certification done in 30 days rather than the 180 we were expecting.  I do realize that my unsupported memory is not fit material for an encyclopedia. PhGustaf (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solaris on PPC 

message: Why is Unix in this article title (and content) in all caps when the actual Unix page has it spelled Unix (as opposed to UNIX). There needs to be some consistency here, either by moving this article to Single Unix Specification or by moving Unix to UNIX. I'm not going to do it myself until I get some feedback,
Thanks -- stevenrasnick Monday, November 3, 2008 10:20 PM.
:Approve Per [discussion], go for it. Richardc020 (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Capitalization?

message: Is IEEE Std 1003.1-2008 part of SUSv4 or v3? Is SUSv4 even a standard (there seem to be no certifcations for it)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.88.150.87 (talk) 00:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Version 4? 

message: I am not sure if Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6) is Open Brand UNIX 03 registred. The linked documents are for Mac OS X Leopard (10.5) only.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.226.213.211 (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Snow Leopard 

message: What is the difference between Single Unix Specification and POSIX? --Abdull (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: POSIX is a single standard based on UNIX. Single UNIX Specification is a small collection of standards, all related, and all based on UNIX. Basically, SUS is an attempt at combining several standards to create something a standard that's much more specific than any of it's parts, thus further ensuring better compatibility between UNIX and UNIX-based operating systems than any one of it's parts would.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikidalto (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difference between Single Unix Specification and POSIX 

message: I have changed POSIX:2001 to POSIX.1-2001 and similarly for later years since I could not find the colon-forms in authoritative sources.
Some sources:
* SUS 2008 edition mentions "POSIX.1-2008".
* SUS 2018 edition mentions "POSIX.1-2017".
* Read The Single UNIX® Specification, Version 3 mentions "POSIX.1-2001, UNIX 98, UNIX 95, POSIX.1-1996, POSIX.2-1992".
* standards(7) man page in man7.org mentions "POSIX.1-2001".
* POSIX.1 (7) man page for Solaris mentions "POSIX.1-2001", "POSIX.1-2004" and "POSIX.1-2008" and has a longer list in table "History: POSIX Standards". It also mentions "SUSv3" as POSIX.1-2001 and "SUSv4" as POSIX.1-2008.
* Python tarfile mentions "POSIX.1-1988" and "POSIX.1-2001".
* Update normative reference to POSIX at open-std.org mentions "POSIX.1-2001" and "POSIX-1.2008".
The dash-forms are also used in the current POSIX article.
--Dan Polansky (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of POSIX:2001 to POSIX.1-2001

message: It is not very clear whether compress is optional. On one hand, it is marked as "[XSI]." On the other hand, it is not listed in SUSv4 authorized guide in the following paragraph:
: "UNIX system will provide all the tools in XCU, with the following provisions:
:* The DEVELOPMENT utilities need not be provided. These consist of:
:*: admin,cflow,ctags,cxref,delta,get,lex,make,nm,prs,rmdel,sact,sccs,str ip,unget,val,what,yacc
:* [...]
It would have to be clarified whether "[XSI]" alone is sufficient for something to be optional for application of UNIX brand.
The guide says "For example,if functionality is marked with XSI in the margin, it will be available on all UNIX certified systems, but may not be available on systems only supporting the base POSIX.1 requirements." And it says "There  are  45  margin  codes defined  in  total  in  XBD,Section  2.1.6,  Options. 40 of these reflect optional  features  defined  within the  POSIX  base  standard,  six  of  which  are  mandatory in the Single  UNIX  Specification (FSC, TSA, TSH, TSS, UP, and  XSI)."
My reading of this is that "[XSI]" mark alone does not make something optional for SUS compliance; it may be optional in POSIX but not in SUS. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: compress - mandatory or optional