Timeline for Why isn't GNU/Linux SUS v3+ compliant?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 23, 2018 at 20:06 | history | edited | ctrl-alt-delor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Oct 23, 2018 at 3:58 | comment | added | phuclv | @vonbrand can you elaborate what interfaces are those? Since there are actually Linux distros that got the certification since 2012 | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 13:36 | comment | added | schily | This is not corret as what I mentioned happened in 2005 | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 13:07 | comment | added | Stephen Kitt | @schily the answer was written a long time before that offer happened. Perhaps you could add your own answer recounting those events! | |
| Sep 5, 2018 at 12:56 | comment | added | schily | Your answer is wrong: The Opengroup made a special contract for Linux some years ago and settled the price to one Dollar. Approx. 18 months ago, I did some negotiations with the Austin Group and this resulted in a general availability for free for interested OSS projects. | |
| S Jul 10, 2016 at 5:58 | history | suggested | Marc.2377 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Fixed a typo, minor wording and punctuation adjustments
|
| Jul 10, 2016 at 5:32 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 10, 2016 at 5:58 | |||||
| Feb 13, 2016 at 0:49 | history | edited | Thomas Dickey | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fix a typo
|
| Jan 24, 2013 at 12:31 | comment | added | tmow | @vonbrand thx. added your comments in the answer | |
| Jan 24, 2013 at 12:31 | history | edited | tmow | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
As my answer is not completely correct, I add the comments of vonbrand
|
| Jan 24, 2013 at 10:48 | comment | added | vonbrand | @tmow, sure. POSIX mandates some interface, which Linux just won't ever have. Case closed. | |
| Jan 24, 2013 at 10:28 | comment | added | tmow | @vonbrand this makes harder to obtain a certification? | |
| Jan 23, 2013 at 15:01 | comment | added | vonbrand | Linus (and people involved in the development of other parts of Linux distributions) follow the pragmatic guideline to make it as close to POSIX as is worthwhile. There are parts of POSIX (like the (in)famous STREAMS) that are ill-conceived, impossible to implement efficiently, or just codification of historic relics that should be replaced by something better. | |
| Jun 6, 2011 at 12:00 | comment | added | tmow | Yes, @fpmurphy , sure and it actually costs a lot of money. In fact the cost is not limited to the certification itself, but also on the effort of being compliant... | |
| Jun 5, 2011 at 14:10 | comment | added | fpmurphy | It is not just about money. It would require fairly major changes to Red Hat and the other GNU/Linux distributions to become UNIX-compliant. | |
| Mar 16, 2011 at 15:07 | vote | accept | Shinnok | ||
| Jan 20, 2011 at 16:42 | comment | added | tmow | The point is, why to spend money for a certification when customers don't ask for it? | |
| Jan 20, 2011 at 13:24 | comment | added | xenoterracide | I wonder why Red Hat and the like never try to get certified. I mean I know why Debian doesn't. | |
| Jan 20, 2011 at 10:56 | history | answered | tmow | CC BY-SA 2.5 |