> 
> >> So, ENOENT (rather than my initial guess, which would have been
> >> EINVAL) is correct.
> (correct according to POSIX, that is.)
> > It looks like POSIX initially pandered to SysV when it was
> > establishing its guidelines...
> 
> Yeah...I've never quite understood why so many people - at least on
> these lists - seem to feel POSIX compliance is important but that
> compatability with traditional BSD practice isn't.  Is it just because
> BSD didn't care to push some standards body into rubber-stamping their
> way of doing things?  (As far as I can tell that's all POSIX is.)

>From our point of view, "standards compliance" by operating systems is
what makes it feasible for us to market software on different operating
systems. "Traditional BSD practice" buys us *nothing*. I don't advocate
ignoring traditional practice, however, where there is a conflict between
this and standards compliance, I'll go for the latter.

I take the selfish approach that I expect to see the same functionality
in all the operating systems we use. If this comes about by ANSI, POSIX,
X/Open ... I don't really care.

> 
> Or should I just try to get used to thinking of this OS as NetPOSIX
> with a misleading name attached?

I wouldn't complain if NetBSD was regarded as a reference implementation
of POSIX (where applicable).

> 
> 					der Mouse
> 
> 			    mouse@collatz.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
> 
> (Yeah, I'm feeling a bit cynical.  Okay, perhaps more than a bit.)
> 


-- 
John Birrell                                CIMlogic Pty Ltd
jb@cimlogic.com.au                          119 Cecil Street
Ph  +61  3 9690 6900                        South Melbourne Vic 3205
Fax +61  3 9690 6650                        Australia
Mob +61 18  353  137