5 ms·

Speaking of standards, has anything happened with POSIX since '08?

• caf 11y ago
  The current edition of POSIX is from 2013: http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/ http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/
  • uxcn 11y ago
    I guess what I was really wondering was why so little has changed with respect to multiprocessing, modern filesystems, resource quotas, virtualization, etc... since '08.
    • caf 11y ago
      I think it would be hard to give an answer without a more specific question, this just seems like a kind of nonspecific gripe.
      • uxcn 11y ago
        I personally have a number of specific gripes, but more importantly it seems odd the committee hasn't added anything to the standard since '08 (especially since good portable software generally needs more functionality now). As an easy example, multiprocessing has become more important between now and then. Why are things like processor affinities still not defined?
        • caf 11y ago
          There has been recent movement in multiprocessing - for example robust and errorchecking mutexes are now in the base spec. In the case of processor affinity, it looks to me like no-one has ever suggested it. Participating in the Austin Group is pretty open - why don't you put a proposal forward? (Maybe affinity can be added to struct sched_param somehow?)
          • drewcrawford 11y ago
            > Participating in the Austin Group is pretty open Not really. I know someone who's spent ages trying to get O_CREATE added as an alias for O_CREAT. http://spiegelmock.com/2015/01/23/fixing-a-typo-the-hard-way-unix-standards-style/ http://spiegelmock.com/2015/01/23/fixing-a-typo-the-hard-way...
            • uxcn 11y ago
              This was a bit disheartening to read. I didn't see a any problem proper versioning couldn't address. Breaking backward compatibility shouldn't be an issue as long as you generally don't break forward compatibility. I was under the impression this was what the POSIX_C_SOURCE macro was meant for.
            • spacemanmatt 11y ago
              Maybe your associate can fix referers next
    • quotemstr 11y ago
      The POSIX bug tracker [1] is public. Go search it for what you want. [1] http://austingroupbugs.net/main_page.php http://austingroupbugs.net/main_page.php
  • pjmlp 11y ago
    And still doesn't cover more of the things modern apps care about. It is only good for CLI applications and daemons. EDIT: For the downvoters what are the POSIX APIs for: - Graphics (besides the clunky CDE and OpenGL isn't POSIX) - Thread/Task pools - Bluetooth, NFC, GPS, fingerprint readers, .... - Application containers
    • tedunangst 11y ago
      Is fingerprint reading within the scope of what OpenGroup is trying to do? POSIX doesn't specify whether you should make a web page with CSS2 or CSS3 either.
      • pjmlp 11y ago
        If the scope of POSIX is a portable UNIX API, it should cover some kind of portable hardware access API across UNIX like systems, no? Currently it mostly covers hardware from PDP-11 systems still, anything else via /dev, ioctl, whatever, is vendor specific. Last time I checked that weren't any portable API for USB for example.
        • tedunangst 11y ago
          Last I checked there wasn't even a portable way to make a new filesystem. POSIX standard is a lot like the C standard, far above and almost completely hardware agnostic.
          • pjmlp 11y ago
            Actually UNIX kind of plays the role of C runtime, but when the time for standardizing C came, they could only make into ANSI C features that were common across multiple hardware and OSes back in the late 80's. So what was left out of ANSI C, is what became POSIX. Making any OS with ANSI C + POSIX compliant compatible with the original UNIX systems. But unlike other programming languages, on C's case the evolution in terms of standard libraries stopped there.
        • uxcn 11y ago