Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
>> "has code from the original Unix".
> 
> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?

There's some interesting info about GNU's POSIX compliance.

By default, a few GNU tools deviate from POSIX, leaving a way to enable 
POSIX compliance. There was an environment variable called POSIX_ME_HARDER 
to make several GNU things follow the POSIX specification more closely. It 
was then renamed to POSIXLY_CORRECT.

"POSIXLY_CORRECT exists so we have an excuse to say that we still support 
the spec, if you define the environment variable. POSIX_ME_HARDER was the 
original way. Then a slightly prudish board member convinced me to change it 
to POSIXLY_CORRECT which I now think was a mistake. I should have left it as 
POSIX_ME_HARDER."
-- Richard Stallman

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > and "a unix OS" means "behaves like Unix", not
> > "has code from the original Unix".

> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?

  Well, given that POSIX is defined as a family of standards which define
the API and command-line utilities for software compatible with Unix, I'd
say it's more or less the whole point (ie. that a POSIX-compliant OS could
be considered a Unix variant).

  (After all, the acronym itself contains the word "unix".)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:

> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?

Doesn't Windows pretend to be partially POSIX-compliant?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
> 
>> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
> 
> Doesn't Windows pretend to be partially POSIX-compliant?

That was my next question, yes. ;-)

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Forget "focus follows mouse." When do
   I get "focus follows gaze"?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Darren New wrote:
> > 
> >> Wouldn't most any POSIX-compliant OS fit this definition?
> > 
> > Doesn't Windows pretend to be partially POSIX-compliant?

> That was my next question, yes. ;-)

  Partially POSIX-compliant is not the same as fully POSIX-compliant.
POSIX doesn't define only system calls.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 1-2-2010 17:49, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:33:01 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 
>>>> Doesn't it vary depending on how many hours you work?
>>> sure, that is full time. 38 or 40 hours per week. Are you working
>>> full-time?
>> I am. I was just clarifying the point that there's a dependence there.
>>
>>>> Well, everybody else in this city seems to not have a problem finding
>>>> a job, so...
>>>>
>>> Sorry, what *city*?
>> ...?
> 
> He's asking what city you're in.

Because I know he lives in Milton Keynes, I doubt if that counts as a 
real city.

Post a reply to this message

On 2/1/2010 9:44 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 10:07:32 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> I guess most managers just don't make a habit of telling everybody how
>> much more money they earn than you do...
>
> At least here in the US, salary information is considered confidential
> and isn't supposed to be discussed with anyone other than your boss, HR,
> and payroll.
>
> Jim
The rule ostensibly being to prevent people griping to the boss about 
someone else getting a raise. In reality, one suspects its so that the 
person working 25 hours a week at $7.25 an hour, and taking food stamps, 
doesn't found out that the guy two levels over him works 40 hours at $20 
an hour, and the guy at the very top probably makes the equivalent of 
$500 an hour, plus gets million dollar bonuses every year, even while 
his incompetence just erased your job and that of 2,000 other people 
that where in your same situation.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 23:23:41 +0100, andrel wrote:

> Because I know he lives in Milton Keynes, I doubt if that counts as a
> real city.

Population is about 228,000 people.  I think that counts; it may not be 
Manhattan, but it is a reasonably heavily populated area.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 01 Feb 2010 19:41:16 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> The rule ostensibly being to prevent people griping to the boss about
> someone else getting a raise.

Well, yeah, and some people get really touchy about it.  I worked with a 
guy several years ago who found out the department's administrative 
assistant made more than he did; he asked me how I felt about it (never 
mind the fact that I probably made more than both of them anyways, but if 
I didn't, I really didn't care), and I said "good for her!" - which 
caught him quite off-guard.

I don't see salaries as a competition; never have.  There's a difference, 
though, between being paid competitively and being paid unfairly, so I 
look to the industry averages for a point of comparison, never my co-
workers (as if I could anyways).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> He's asking what city you're in.
> 
> Because I know he lives in Milton Keynes, I doubt if that counts as a 
> real city.

WTF?

It's a major urban center. Of *course* it counts as a city!

(It even has its own "cathedral" - although IMHO it's not really worthy 
of the title.)

Post a reply to this message