-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 06:35:41PM -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 19:51 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
> > The original GNU development platform, that is correct. Even tho
> > you are refering to SunOS (prior to 4.1).
>
> Well, yes, a lot of GNU was developed prior. But Linus based a lot
> of his decisions on later versions of the early '90s.
So, there is no corelation, since Linux is not a GNU project :) (let the
flamewar begin).
> > No, not LSB. It is another standard, much older than that.
> > ...
> > I'll disagree with you on this as soon as I find the standard I'm
> > talking about.
> > ...
> > As I said, I was not talking about LSB, let alone 2.1. It is a standard
> > that even AIX (from IBM) follows, even tho I'm not sure about Solaris.
> > I would suppose it does, tho. I'll find it ... Eventually.
>
> It if applies to AIX, but not Solaris, then I give up?
As I said, it is not that it doesn't apply to Solaris. It is
just that I can't say that, since I don't know.
> I'll believe you if you can show System-V documentation from AT&T
> that matches _all_ of the perpetual licensees from their standardization
> efforts of 1986+. But I have a feeling that AIX, HP/UX, Digital/Tru64
> and many others aren't going to match either.
Not from AT&T ehehehe
> > I know it is not. This is just to clarify a technical point that
> > is of interest for us all. A point that we don't agree uppon, and
> > we are both trying to find solid enough arguments to clear a
> > missunderstanding.
>
> Regardless, at this point, Debian, Solaris and several other,
> System-V style inits _differ_ with Red Hat and this "UNIX-like"
> standard. That was my point, there is no "standard."
Okey. We are disgressing here. I agree with you that the inits are different.
In every conceivable way. I'm just talking about runlevels ?)
> > You can rest assured I don't take anything as a personal attack
> > easily. I always tend to consider the other person is trying to
> > help me understand something better. Have no worries about it :)
> > Let me make a even more generic summary. Standarization or no standarization,
> > Linux Distros do have different runlevel characteristic, and that
> > should be taken into consideration. I'll conceed defeat on that point.
> > As for the standarization, I'm still looking for the standard,
> > so I'll wait until my memory is proven to be wrong, which won't
> > be the first time.
>
> Actually, if you find it it will be very useful to me as well.
> It would be a thorn in the side of many distros, even if all of
> the perpetual licensees didn't agree to it.
I will. Eventually. I just need time to look for it, but
I'm in the middle of 2 big projects right now, so it might take
a few days.
[]s
- --
Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur"
"Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCn6EEpdyWzQ5b5ckRAsxJAJ47im88MH+P4pyPtWZR5iPba969/wCgjMqr
vnn/Eqn9CTFei9GtVuZWdLc=
=VKQ4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
