Live data from Hacker News

Posix Has Become Outdated (2016) [pdf]

cs.columbia.edu

131–140 of 246 posts

Re: Posix Has Become Outdated (2016) [pdf]

#131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Isn't the point that those are the most prolific platforms You're confusing popularity with being technically antiquated or obsolete.

I think your reading more into my comment than is there. If you're trying to write a portable app between all of those platforms, would you choose POSIX or would you instead pick a framework or language that has a better high level abstraction?

Again, you're confusing popularity with being technically antiquated or obsolete.

The thesis presented in the article is that POSIX is outdated. The popularity of a platform, particularly one which was forced upon the world through a de-facto monopoly, is entirely irrelevant in any argument on the technical merits of a technical standard, particularly when some of those platforms were designed with the express purpose of locking out virtually all standardized programming languages.

Re: Posix Has Become Outdated (2016) [pdf]

#132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> POSIX was supposed to be popular to the point If you read up on why companies such as Microsoft make it their point to break and avoid standards, you would understand why your comments regarding "popularity" are moot. Business strategies don't make or break technical merits.

I would not if the goal of a standard is uptake by OS and application developers. Wide usage of a product = popularity. It didn't achieve the popularity it sought. This is independent of what businesses like Microsoft were doing. Microsoft's strategy was to create a permanent dependence on them for long-term profitability. They had too many tactics for that to cover here. Once open standards proliferated, they subver…

> I would not if the goal of a standard is uptake by OS and application developers.

That point is moot, as those platforms were designed with the express purpose of being particularly hostile regarding interoperability while forcing other corporate products as alternatives, in a well-known lock-in strategy.

Re: Posix Has Become Outdated (2016) [pdf]

#133
post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> POSIX was supposed to be popular to the point If you read up on why companies such as Microsoft make it their point to break and avoid standards, you would understand why your comments regarding "popularity" are moot. Business strategies don't make or break technical merits.

Are you also speaking about all those APIs in GNU/Linux that aren't part of any other UNIX clone?

You're confusing things. You don't break a standard when you write a function or even a whole library.

Re: Posix Has Become Outdated (2016) [pdf]

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Try to write a modern iOS, OS X, Windows, Android, ChromeOS UWP with standardized POSIX interfaces. You're confusing popularity with being outdated. It's irrelevant if some vendors intentionallly go out of their way to avoid implementing any standard interface which, in the very least, can't be controlled by them. And it's also absurd that you're quoting platforms which even restrict which programming language can…

"You're confusing popularity with being outdated." POSIX was supposed to be popular to the point of default way that apps were written. It failed. Whereas there's quite a bit of portable apps on (insert framework here). They succeeded with many running on non-UNIX OS's, too. You'll need those or similar things in your code instead of POSIX for truly, portable apps. That's his point.

> POSIX was supposed to be popular to the point of default way that apps were written. It failed.

So POSIX was a long series of attempts to codify baseline Unix practice that arose because in the '87 time period there were tens of small, warring, incompatible Unix distributions ( cf. http://www.ugu.com/sui/ugu/show?ugu.flavors ), and systems software vendors could not write software that worked across all of these platforms properly.

The original post report is a cri de coeur call to action written in POSIX magazine attempting to oversell the story with a clickbait title in order to urge further POSIX work. This thread and others is loaded with people that have only read the title and have their own half-formed opinions.

There was never any idea that all apps everywhere would be written with POSIX. That's a ridiculous reading. I was there at the time. It was just an effort to get all of the Unix vendors on the same page so that the big commercial non-Unix OS vendor and their salespeople wouldn't eat the lunch of the high end workstation and server market.

And it succeeded phenomenally. With POSIX as a more-or-less stable substrate, it became possible to run, e.g., gnu's entire platform on almost anything that was POSIX-compliant or close; e.g. SunOS, Solaris, and eventually Linux, with minimal effort. It became possible for software like vi, emacs, mysql, sqlite to exist. Sysadmins could write shell scripts without anything like the kind of portability fear they had in the past.

Uncoincidentally, this continues today; all of the non-Windows software you're using is based on POSIX standards. Every phone is packed with POSIX-foundationed databases, daemons and sometimes even userlands. And of course there's Linux which, despite the continuing efforts of Red Hat, is about as POSIX as it comes.

Read the box at the bottom of page 9 of the original post. POSIX won, totally and unconditionally.

Re: Posix Has Become Outdated (2016) [pdf]

#135
This article is biased towards desktop environments, but misses embedded.

Lots of RTOSes are POSIX compliant for things like Pthreds and file systems. Off the top of my head, VxWorks, RTEMS, INTEGRITY, and QNX all have POSIX compatability.

Re: Posix Has Become Outdated (2016) [pdf]

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"You're confusing popularity with being outdated." POSIX was supposed to be popular to the point of default way that apps were written. It failed. Whereas there's quite a bit of portable apps on (insert framework here). They succeeded with many running on non-UNIX OS's, too. You'll need those or similar things in your code instead of POSIX for truly, portable apps. That's his point.

> POSIX was supposed to be popular to the point of default way that apps were written. It failed. So POSIX was a long series of attempts to codify baseline Unix practice that arose because in the '87 time period there were tens of small, warring, incompatible Unix distributions ( cf. http://www.ugu.com/sui/ugu/show?ugu.flavors ), and systems software vendors could not write software that worked across all of these pl…

> I was there at the time. It was just an effort to get all of the Unix vendors on the same page so that the big commercial non-Unix OS vendor and their salespeople wouldn't eat the lunch of the high end workstation and server market.

Precisely.

Additionallly, criticizing the technical merits of an international standard established in 1997 is a disingenuous ordeal. If anyone actually has any meaningful and tangible technical issue to point out regarding POSIX, they should simply put forth an implementation that actually addresses the issues and use it as a basis for a discussion to update the standard.

Standards are meant to be used as references, and therefore are meant to be updated when the need arises.

Re: Posix Has Become Outdated (2016) [pdf]

#137
post #128

They managed to write an entire article about POSIX and never mention the filesystem parts? Even the section about "asynchronous I/O" seems to have more to do with locking than actual I/O. Nothing about directory operations, permission models, consistency/durability requirements, and all the other things that make that part of POSIX the most egregiously out of date. I wrote a bit about this ( http://pl.atyp.us/2016-0…

There's a whole lot of POSIX that they didn't mention. They concentrated upon the system call API and left out all of the concepts (character sets, locale, environment variables, regular expressions, command line conventions), the filesystem, the shell, and the utilities.

They didn't even cover the system call API.

Re: Posix Has Become Outdated (2016) [pdf]

#138
post #69

The original goal of the POSIX standard was application source code portability. However, modern applications are no longer being written to standardized POSIX interfaces. Speak for yourself.

> Speak for yourself. Actually the inverse: don't speak for yourself, because it's irrelevant. What the authors did was try to speak for what happens at large -- which is what matters. Outliers will always exist, but their team analyzed thousands of packages across three different OS environments to come to conclusions. It's not about there being counter-examples, it's about what they saying being the norm.

They established that many applications are not POSIX-compliant. They did not establish that modern applications are not POSIX-compliant.

Re: Posix Has Become Outdated (2016) [pdf]

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would not if the goal of a standard is uptake by OS and application developers. Wide usage of a product = popularity. It didn't achieve the popularity it sought. This is independent of what businesses like Microsoft were doing. Microsoft's strategy was to create a permanent dependence on them for long-term profitability. They had too many tactics for that to cover here. Once open standards proliferated, they subver…

> I would not if the goal of a standard is uptake by OS and application developers. That point is moot, as those platforms were designed with the express purpose of being particularly hostile regarding interoperability while forcing other corporate products as alternatives, in a well-known lock-in strategy.

"those platforms were designed with the express purpose"

They were designed with the purpose of giving users a way to get things done that was profitable to the company. The first part along with lock-in techniques are why most of the desktop market is Windows with a large chunk of the server market. That means the kind of portability that matters to people wanting to maximize benefit to users or profits to the company better include a Windows version. There are portability alternatives to POSIX that allow that usually with other benefits on top of it. Far from moot...

Re: Posix Has Become Outdated (2016) [pdf]

#140
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the 80s and throughout the 90s, a common belief was that the CLI could be completely replaced by the GUI, one just hadn't yet figured out how. The GUI, however, never delivered those last 10-20% that you need in automation or in a context that requires reproducibility. Windows NT was designed towards those promises, but eventually Microsoft realised their mistake and created - ten years ago - Powershell…

> At the end of the 80s and throughout the 90s, a common belief was that the CLI could be completely replaced by the GUI And it has, except for backend programmers. Most Windows programmers stay all day in Visual Studio and the like, for example. But as far as end users as concerned, that is the 99% of computer users, the CLI might as well not exist.

I write client-side code in Xcode but I use the terminal all day for various things.
Post reply on HN