home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Submitted-by: willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David A Willcox)
-
- mib@geech.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) writes:
-
- > Let us not. Let us RTFS instead.
-
- >Sigh. RTFS, of course, stands for Read The Source.
-
- Actually, at least in this context, RTFS should be taken as "Read the
- f-ing Standard", which in this case is unambiguous: the owner of a
- "mode 040" file cannot read it. What seems to be confusing people (at
- least the ones who actually DID read the standard) is all of the stuff
- about "alternative protection schemes". That's all in there to permit
- security enhancements like security labels (an "unclassified" process
- can never read ANY "secret" files) and access control lists (I'll let
- fred and george read the file, and harry write it when he is logged in
- as group "operator").
-
- >Since
- >nobody but the FSF seems to want real Posix.1 compliance and ANSI C
- >compliance in one system, I guess Reat The Standard will not be a good
- >clue to the behavior of Posix compliance claiming systems.
-
- I don't think that that's true. I know of at least three vendors who
- are at least striving to support ANSI C and POSIX.1 on the same
- system. It can be done. The headers get pretty ugly, though.
-
- David A. Willcox "Just say 'NO' to universal drug testing"
- Motorola MCG - Urbana UUCP: ...!uiucuxc!udc!willcox
- 1101 E. University Ave. INET: willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com
- Urbana, IL 61801 FONE: 217-384-8534
-
-
- Volume-Number: Volume 23, Number 93
-
-