In message <199903200426.UAA19067@cue.bc.ca>, John Nemeth writes:
>On Mar 19, 12:02pm, seebs@plethora.net wrote:
>} In message <199903190723.XAA16362@cue.bc.ca>, John Nemeth writes:
>} >     BSD, is a standard in its own right.
>} Please advise where the standard is defined.  For instance, if two vendors
>     The last release from CSRG.

How, then, would you define a "bug" in BSD 4.4 systems?

A standard is something that lets me go to a vendor and say "this is a bug",
because it contradicts the standard.  The standard can't be the code.

>Where are the standards for NIS,
>NIS+, RFS, PAM, or any number of other things defined?  I don't
>believe that "standards" are only in the domain of "official standards
>bodies".

RFC's are fine for me.  :)

>     Both of these are derivatives and not the real thing.  Of course,
>the real thing isn't particularly useful, since it is incomplete.  It
>is up to the individual to decide which of FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD,
>and BSD/OS are doing things in the BSD way, when a conflict occurs.

I'd rather let people judge this by feel, and rely on formal standards
for standardization.

>     Granted.  If I wasn't using NetBSD, I would probably be using one
>of the other *BSD's.  However, the Linux camp tends to be POSIX, SysV,
>and BSD (in that order).  Whereas NetBSD is very much in the BSD mold.

Agreed - and I'd much prefer POSIX/BSD/SysV (or even just POSIX/BSD) to
Linux.  On the other hand, I'd prefer POSIX/BSD to BSD/POSIX.  It's the
BSD thing for /bin/sh to be useless.  ;)

-s