*chuckle*

True because they are not inside POSIX spec so don’t have to follow it.

Did your google machine break down or something?

http://www5.opengroup.org/personal/ajosey/tr28-07-2003.txt

https://wiki.linuxfoundation.org/en/PosixConflicts

Brillo you arguments have no base on history.

“Unix 2000″.

End of argument.

Funny enough there is no workstation requirement in Unix 2000 and latter because everything had to pass the Unix workstation or not be certified as Unix full stop.

Brillo
–LOL. “Vendor lock-in”? Because obviously the purpose of The Open Group is to band its members together so they can lock themselves into some ugly, Motif-based, designed-by-committee piece of junk called “Common Desktop Environment”.–

1998 there was 1 certified Unix that was Linux. This caused the members of the open group a problem. Yes something common they could agree to ship that was closed source that effectively prevented the case of more Linux systems being Unix certified.

http://www.unix.com/aix/10781-start-cde-using-reflection-aix.html You will find every Unix has a way of installing and using cde. Remember it is a closed source program at that time.

Brillo
“I am sorry, has it ever occured to you that some system calls in Linux are simply not POSIX compliant?”

True because they are not inside POSIX spec so don’t have to follow it.

http://lwn.net/Articles/457089/ Attempt to use this link really prove Posix non conformance is incompetent.

Its talking about the x32 ABI this is a different abi to the 32 bit ABI userspace on Linux. The normal 32 bit ABI userspace ABI implements time as per Posix.

x32 ABI runs inside 64 bit memory space. Nothing in Posix specification covers this. It was never designed for the case of 32 and 64 bit code operating in the same memory space and interacting directly with each other as x32 ABI does. So what everything about x32 ABI is out side the range of the Posix specifications other than where they are suitable.

Posix solution to the time problem is just stop using 32 bit code by 2028. Linux developers have found there are some performance advantages to 32 bit code so created x32.

Yes Linux has two side by side 32 bit implementations one is Posix. Side by side platform implementations is not forbin by posix if it was Windows NT could never been certified.

Brillo so everything with x32 in it does not have to be posix conforming end of story.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X32_ABI Lot of people the possibility of a OS having 2 32 bit modes don’t cross there mind. Linux is not the first OS to have more than 1 32 bit mode.

Of course it never occurred to you that a set of events caused what I told you about.

Finally Linux Standard Base in recent years have synced Authorship in a lot of places with the Open Group.

Brillo you arguments have no base on history. You think of a world were many Linux vendors had Unix certification so able to sell as Unix. The Unix brand would have been made worth less. So you alter the test suites and requirements to prevent this.

Vendor Lock-in at work. Alter the rules to suit you. Requirement to ship CDE suited the makes of Unix certified OS’s down to the ground to stop Linux and other open source OS’s certifying.

It seems that all my lastest comments have got swallowed up by the CMS. Any idea as to why this is happening?

Which are the best desktops out there, Pogson, with the exception of Macs. Ever since 95 Linux is trying to replicate the desktop of Windows with sad results, unfortunately.

Vista was heavily critisized for its Aero desktop, but it laid the foundations for 7. 7 is a success Linux can only dream of. Now 8 lays the foundations for the future. MS do know that, have in mind. They brag with the ongoing success of 7 for a reason – they expect 7 to stay strong. 8 will simply pave the road for tablets, touch ultrabooks and Surface. No one at MS expects businesses to adopt 8 in numbers.

Really? REALLY?

Putting aside the fact that Solaris 11 still preserves some of the CDE libraries for compatibility purposes, CDE not being part of SUS is a pretty tell-taling fact that whatever knowledge you claim in Unix standardization is at best dubious.

Of course, this is not to mention that you have got the base UNIX standard and the UNIX workstation standard (from 1998) completely mixed up:

http://www.informatica.co.cr/unix/research/1998/0103.htm

Yeah, I am pretty sure members of The Open Group would not notice such a propersterous problem (even though they are mostly major vendors of server OSs) and correct accordingly. Also, there was no standard for workstations in UNIX 03.

Your ability to make stuff up doesn’t seem to be as flawless as you imagine it to be, does it?

I don’t dispute the claim that CDE was not part of the standard.

You are disputing it, with nothing more than made-up nonsense from your own head.

Seriously, are you just doing this in the hope that your critics will eventually get bored by your wordy responses and go away, or you just have some pathological urge to tell tall tales?

Just make it a dependency for the test suite problem solved you have you item pushed everywhere.

LOL. “Vendor lock-in”? Because obviously the purpose of The Open Group is to band its members together so they can lock themselves into some ugly, Motif-based, designed-by-committee piece of junk called “Common Desktop Environment”.

Those test were the few tests a Linux Standard Base distribution had not run.

I am sorry, has it ever occured to you that some system calls in Linux are simply not POSIX compliant? Linus Torvalds is even recorded as saying that the standard is what he use to “wipe after [he's] used the toilet”:

http://lwn.net/Articles/457089/

You don’t know how Linux works. You don’t know how Unix works. You don’t even know how Windows works. Software programming is certainly out of the question.

Pray tell, what, in fact, you do actually know.

Other than the fact the test tool would break if it was missing when it generated the report.

Chris Weig
“Mac OS X couldn’t claim to be a fully compliant UNIX”
Mac OS X had to have a X11 server and yes there was a CDE for OSX.

Welcome to the evils of vendor lockin Brillo and Chris Weig. I don’t dispute the claim that CDE was not part of the standard. Problem is CDE was part of the UNIX test suite. Every UNIX run it because if they did not they did not pass the test suite as required to be certified. Those test were the few tests a Linux Standard Base distribution had not run.

Of course both of come out swinging that it has to be part of the standard. There is more than 1 way to skin a cat. Vendor lockin can be abused in some very creative ways.

“CDE for Unix certification.” Yes a laugh right you have to ship it so the The Open Group test suite would run. So you can get your approve as a Unix.

This way The Open Group gets to appear to be all desktop environment neutral it not written in the standard. Just make it a dependency for the test suite problem solved you have you item pushed everywhere.

Chris Weig
“You know, Mr. oiaohm, the SSU is this thing an OS has to comply with if it wants to call itself a UNIX”
True it the Test Suite not the Standard.

Now CDE is open source it would be funny if we had a certified Unix Linux again. Last one was a long way back before CDE ended up as a dependency in the test-suite.

Basically if you did not have some other desktop you had CDE because you need it.

History of what has gone on has some very warped stuff.

Brillo and Chris Weig. You both looked at comment looked at the standard. Did it not cross you mind that it might have been default for some other reason. Did it not cross your mind to double check what they had to run to pass.

What is more important to Certification the Standard or the Testsuite. The answer with The Open Group the Testsuite. CDE is not the only thing that was not in the standard that The Open Group testsuites forces you to have.

Why CDE was default on most Unix systems is really underhanded when you know why.

Brillo how do you test X11 implementation conformance for interfacing with X11 Windows Managers. Answer that and you answer why CDE exists. See it now its part of the test-suite.

That’s nonsense. Competition is a good thing. It helps the cream rise to the top. Desktops without competition result in “ME”, “Vista” and “8″… Some folks at GNOME and KDE began to think they were all that anyone wanted and could do whatever they wanted with GNU/Linux but the world may not follow them. XFCE4 meets a lot of needs without the bloat. That’s efficient and requires little or no retraining for users of that other OS. That meets a lot of need too.

I see two really popular */Linux GUIs: Android/Linux and Ubuntu GNU/Linux. Android has touch sewed up pretty well but Ubuntu has tried innovation that does not work very well for familiar GNU/Linux and that other OS users of mice and keyboards. It will all sort itself out. Success of GNU/Linux does not depend on Canonical/Ubuntu just as a football team does not depend solely on a quarterback. Quarterbacks can be changed and teams can thrive.

At this time there are more than a billion folks who are familiar with XP and half a billion familiar with Android/Linux. GNU/Linux has about 100 million users. Those familiar with XP can and do switch to XFCE4 smoothly. Android/Linux users may well switch to the new Ubuntu/GNOME smoothly. The only thing we know for sure is that XP will fade… I predict increasing popularity for XFCE4. When */Linux does dominate the desktop PC, XFCE4 will be there.

The Week: The [Linux] desktop splinters

Here’s a machine translation: The week: Fragmented the desktop.

Two thumbs up for choice!!

No. CDE is never part of any standard. It’s an effort intiated by the same people who brought to you the Single Unix Specification but never got anywhere at the end.

Sun simply decided to stop caring about in early 00s, even.

My statement is 100 percent correct about CDE being the default of Unix.

LOL.