LKML Archive on
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Ulrich Drepper" <>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <>
Cc: "Samuel Thibault" <>,
	"Arjan van de Ven" <>,
Subject: Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 14:34:59 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On 12/6/06, H. Peter Anvin <> wrote:
> I'm quite aware of that, but I still think Sun has more resources to get
> their particular viewpoint through the committee -- it's just a matter
> of resources at hand.  I myself had to largely drop out due to other
> pressures, for example.

But I'm still there, as are IBM, HP people and various other
organizations.  Sun is represented by one person and all the direct
influence the company has is in the OpenGroup vote (one of three).
And here the field is even wider, many more companies have a vote
(including Red Hat).  The other two organizations are IEEE (where the
members of the balloting group make the decisions, individuals but
also implementer votes) and ISO (which is entirely country based).

It is simply not true that any OS manufacturer has any power like
this.  At least not in the last 8 years or so.  And as I said before,
if you can potentially say this about any OS then it is Linux.  The
ENOTSUP issue is a good example.  There is no need for this change in
any of the certified Unixes (since they got there errno assingments
from SysV or at least tested against the Unix test suite early on).
The pressure from the growing number of Linux users made this an issue
and so it got changed.

And take a look at the next revision.  This is mostly an "align with
Linux" edition since Linux already has all the proposed new
functionality.  Solaris has only a small subset and none of the other
OS have anything like it.

  reply	other threads:[~2006-12-06 22:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-12-06 13:51 Samuel Thibault
2006-12-06 14:25 ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-12-06 14:31   ` Samuel Thibault
2006-12-06 15:17     ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-12-06 20:10       ` Ulrich Drepper
2006-12-06 21:11         ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-12-06 22:34           ` Ulrich Drepper [this message]
2006-12-07 13:49     ` Theodore Tso
2006-12-07 13:59       ` Andreas Schwab
2006-12-07 14:15         ` Theodore Tso
2006-12-07 14:30           ` Andreas Schwab
2006-12-07 15:33             ` Ulrich Drepper
2006-12-06 15:16   ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-12-06 15:25     ` Samuel Thibault
2006-12-06 15:26       ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-12-06 15:34         ` Samuel Thibault
2006-12-06 15:35           ` H. Peter Anvin
2006-12-06 16:14             ` Samuel Thibault
2006-12-06 16:44               ` H. Peter Anvin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: Linux should define ENOTSUP' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).