6 Aug
2024
6 Aug
'24
8:18 p.m.
A little digging turned up FIPS 151-2:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140220130516/http://www.itl.nist.gov/fipspubs…
This website also explains Microsoft's desire to support several APIs:
https://brianreiter.org/2010/08/24/the-sad-history-of-the-microsoft-posix-s…
Rik
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 11:04 AM Marc Rochkind <mrochkind(a)gmail.com> wrote:
As I remember, part of the rationale was that DEC
wanted something that
could be specified in an RFP that was defined in terms of an interface,
rather than an implementation. In theory this would allow them to propose
VMS with an appropriate interface layer. I don't know if anything like this
was ever created. But the interface standard sure was, of course.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 11:32 AM Rik Farrow <rik(a)rikfarrow.com> wrote:
I recall something different than what others had
suggested. When the US
government issued requests for proposals, they weren't permitted to specify
products by name. In particular, if you wanted something that wasn't
Microsoft, you couldn't actually specify that it be Unix.
So POSIX was born partially as a way of letting it be known you wanted a
Unix variant rather than something else.
Certainly porting was an issue. I did work for a software shop in the
late 80s and early 90s that produced graphics software, and porting between
Unix systems was relatively easy, compared to, say, moving the software to
Apollo's DomainIX, a sort of Unix-like version of Apollo Domain. With Unix
systems and this software, the biggest issue was fonts, as the software
needed to be able to calculate the extent, that is, the bounding box, for
text that was to be displayed.
Strangely enough, the other big issue was time.
Rik
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 6:29 AM Peter Weinberger (温博格) via TUHS <
tuhs(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
--
*My new email address is mrochkind(a)gmail.com <mrochkind(a)gmail.com>*
and the folks from PARC wanted a more RPC-based
open OS, according to
my not-yet-fully-retrieved memories.
On Tue, Aug 6, 2024 at 2:40 AM <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote:
segaloco via TUHS <tuhs(a)tuhs.org> wrote:
> Another way to put it would be as a chicken and egg, which came
first, ...
> ..., or the ongoing need for UNIX
standardization finding sponsorship
> by the working groups, IEEE, etc.?
This.
Try to understand what things were like at the time. There were
a ton of competing Unix systems, all different:
- IBM: AIX on the mainframe and PS/2, which were different from
AIX on the RT/PC and later RS/6000 (workstations).
- DEC: Ultrix on minicomputers and microvaxen, and later on MIPS
based workstations
- Data General: DG/UX on their minicomputers.
- Pyramid: A BSD/System V hybrid RISC minicomputer
- Sun: Workstations, 680x0 based and later SPARC based, and servers.
Initially BSD based, later SVR4 based.
- Workstations from HP, Tektronix, NBI, others I've probably forgotten,
3B2 and 3B1/Unix PC from AT&T... The list goes on and on and on.
Things split roughly along BSD/System V lines, but code wasn't
portable.
Did you use bcopy() or memcpy()? index() or
strchr()? There was lots
of mixing and matching happening, too.
There was a crying need for a standard. The mess is what begot GNU
Autoconf, which made a difference at the time. Having the ANSI C
standard
also helped.
HTH,
Arnold