[TUHS] Re: Other POSIX Candidates?

For a long time DEC had "VMS POSIX" product. I don't know much more about it, other than that it existed and was what you describe, more or less. Marc Rochkind &lt;mrochkind(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;rik(a)rikfarrow.com&gt; 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&gt; wrote: >> >>> 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 &lt;arnold(a)skeeve.com&gt; wrote: >>>> segaloco via TUHS &lt;tuhs(a)tuhs.org&gt; 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 > -- > *My new email address is mrochkind(a)gmail.com &lt;mrochkind(a)gmail.com&gt;*