In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
:> umm- last I heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed
:> recently what you describe isn't going to fly.

: Linux has always been POSIX compliant.

ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant.
Some distributions could be.

Stan
--
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:47:59 +0000, stan wrote:

> In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: :> umm- last I
> heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed :> recently
> what you describe isn't going to fly.
>
> : Linux has always been POSIX compliant.
>
> ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant. Some
> distributions could be.

Completely? Not 100% no.

You might want to check this out. Issues that need to be addressed to make
Linux completely POSIX compliant.

http://www.opengroup.org/personal/aj...28-07-2003.txt

--
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
Feingold-Obama '08 - Because the Constitution isn't history,
It's the law.

Ivan Marsh wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:47:59 +0000, stan wrote:
>
>
>>In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: :> umm- last I
>>heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed :> recently
>>what you describe isn't going to fly.
>>
>>: Linux has always been POSIX compliant.
>>
>>ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant. Some
>>distributions could be.
>
>
> Completely? Not 100% no.
>
> You might want to check this out. Issues that need to be addressed to make
> Linux completely POSIX compliant.
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/personal/aj...28-07-2003.txt
>

Interestingly, given the gripe that started this thread, Linux/GNU's
implementation of last is *not* given as one of the problems with
POSIX compliance.


Chris Mattern

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:22:34 -0400, Chris Mattern wrote:

> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:47:59 +0000, stan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: :> umm- last I
>>>heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed :> recently
>>>what you describe isn't going to fly.
>>>
>>>: Linux has always been POSIX compliant.
>>>
>>>ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant. Some
>>>distributions could be.
>>
>>
>> Completely? Not 100% no.
>>
>> You might want to check this out. Issues that need to be addressed to make
>> Linux completely POSIX compliant.
>>
>> http://www.opengroup.org/personal/aj...28-07-2003.txt
>>
>
> Interestingly, given the gripe that started this thread, Linux/GNU's
> implementation of last is *not* given as one of the problems with
> POSIX compliance.

Quick, add it to the list!

I think the document is still in draft form.

--
The USA Patriot Act is the most unpatriotic act in American history.
Feingold-Obama '08 - Because the Constitution isn't history,
It's the law.

In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
: On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:47:59 +0000, stan wrote:

:>
:> ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant. Some
:> distributions could be.

: Completely? Not 100% no.

Well, either it is or it isn't. And it isn't.

If you define "compliant" meaning "partially" then
Windows is POSIX Compliant also. Which gets pretty weird since
POSIX is specifically aimed as a unix-like standard so there's
no reason why it should apply to MAC OS or Windows or DOS
or any other OS that isn't unix-like.

Stan

--
Stan Bischof ("stan" at the below domain)
www.worldbadminton.com

Ivan Marsh wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:47:59 +0000, stan wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: :> umm- last I
>> heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed :> recently
>> what you describe isn't going to fly.
>>
>> : Linux has always been POSIX compliant.
>>
>> ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant. Some
>> distributions could be.
>
> Completely? Not 100% no.
>
> You might want to check this out. Issues that need to be addressed to make
> Linux completely POSIX compliant.
>
> http://www.opengroup.org/personal/aj...28-07-2003.txt

That document is over three years old!! I wouldn't be surprised if a
number of the issues have already been addressed.

know code wrote:
> Ivan Marsh wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 18:47:59 +0000, stan wrote:
>>
>>> In comp.os.linux.misc Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote: :> umm- last I
>>> heard Linux isn't Posix compliant. Unless this has changed :> recently
>>> what you describe isn't going to fly.
>>>
>>> : Linux has always been POSIX compliant.
>>>
>>> ref? Linux is a kernel- it CAN'T be completely Posix compliant. Some
>>> distributions could be.
>>
>>
>> Completely? Not 100% no.
>>
>> You might want to check this out. Issues that need to be addressed to
>> make
>> Linux completely POSIX compliant.
>>
>> http://www.opengroup.org/personal/aj...28-07-2003.txt
>
>
> That document is over three years old!! I wouldn't be surprised if a
> number of the issues have already been addressed.
>
>

I notice than some of the issues are annotated that the Linux
or GNU maintainers have decided, "Designed it that way, like
it better that way, ain't changin' it."


Chris Mattern

Crossposts reduced to Netiquette limit of three groups.

"[OT]" added to the subject.

On comp.unix.shell, in <44ed253b$0$34488$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, "George Fletcher" wrote:

Correction: A rotten child with his mommy's computer and credit
card with 100 kindergarden sockpuppets, wrote:

Who cares? This is about his 50th anti-Linux/Unix thread, and
almost no one but his own sockpuppets have read one of his
articles.

He must be off his medication.

<article not downloaded:
http://slrn.sourceforge.net/docs/README.offline>

10:[George Fletc]
30:[Ben ]
41:[Jon LaBadie ]
29:[Janis ]
58:[Loki Harfagr]
14:[Chris Cox ]
28:[TimeTraveler]
12:[Chris Cox ]
18:[Dan C ]
32:[Philip Paeps]
18:[stan@worldba]
22:[Ivan Marsh ]
13:[stan@worldba]
23:[Ivan Marsh ]
28:[Chris Matter]
37:[Ivan Marsh ]
23:[know code ]
35:[Chris Matter]
22:[stan@worldba]

Same dipschitt troll, talking to his own sockpuppets again.

And maybe some idiots who can be jerked around by any rotten
child with their mommy's computer.

This troll is all pissed off because he can't quit running
his punk mouth long enough to do the homework necessary to
learn Linux/Unix.

And, to make matter worse, he posts questions using various
sockpuppets, so that no one can determine just what he knows, and
so they can't help him.

Alan

--
If you don't have the integrity to post under a single, unique
alias, without the "X-No-Archive: yes" header, then I probably
won't download your articles nor any responses to them. Yes, I
can tell. See my headers for personal info.

This is an autogenerated message.


Alan doesn't believe in anyone else's existence ...

Alan accuses practically everyone of being sock puppets.
Apparently, Alan is the only real person in the newsgroups in which he posts.
(Even Roosta and his towel aren't real.) Recently, Alan has told everyone that
we are all Morely Dotes' sock puppets. In earlier cycles,
we were all apparently sock puppets of Ben Finney.
The choice appears to be arbitrary.

http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/fga.shtml


Who is Alan Connor?


Alan Connor is the inventor and implementor of the final ultimate
solution to the spam problem, and everyone who dares claim otherwise
is a spammer.
That is basically the gist of the messages Alan sometimes spews into NANAE (1)

Alan Connor is appearently also trolling on many other newsgroups.


So what is he raving about?


In reality, Alan's system is known as a challenge-response or C/R system;
it auto-answers incoming email with a challenge and only lets the email
through if it receives a valid response. There are several problems with
this concept, but Alan doesn't want to hear them. In addition,
Alan's system isn't even a very good implementation of the C/R concept,
as it fails to address the chicken-egg problem that is inherent to C/R:
What if your C/R system sends a challenge to an email address that is
also protected by a C/R system? Because of this, Alan and Timo Salmi,
another C/R advocate, are unable to email eachother. So basically Alan's
system is a broken implementation of a flawed concept.

http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/ac/

http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Mail/challenge-response.html

http://www.spamcop.net/fom-serve/cache/329.html#CR

(1) news.admin.net-abuse.email

Also in the headers for "Allan" to read.

Anal Honor <9mdw@j9n35c.invalid> writes:

>This is an autogenerated message.

IOW you openly confess that it's botwork. It's spam (substantively
identical articles), too.

Crosspost to news.software.readers, where I've seen most of
the botwork, previously as alan connor FAQ <alanconnor@earthlink.net>
- 6 times from 12 to 15 Aug 2006. Anal Honor posted there 16 times
since 20 Aug 2006.

Examples of Path:
...!news.ecore.net!news.n-ix.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.ispa.de!\
usenet.ath.cx!usenet2.ath.cx!output11.sto!spool07. far!post02.far!not-for-mail
...!news.ecore.net!news.n-ix.net!news2.arglkargh.de!noris.net!news.osn.de!\
diablo2.news.osn.de!news.germany.com!\
usenet.ath.cx!usenet2.ath.cx!output11.sto!spool01. far!post02.far!not-for-mail

1) Does this originate from usenet.ath.cx?
2) Does anybody know how usenet.ath.cx reacts to complaints about spam,
or is it a lost cause?

Followup-To: news.admin.net-abuse.usenet - hoping that it isn't
completely dead yet. Apart from the bot posting there as alan connor
FGA <alanconnor@earthlink.net>, other kooks, and their baiters, that is.
--
The first entry of Sin into the mind occurs when, out of cowardice or
conformity or vanity, the Real is replaced by a comforting lie.
-- Integritas, Consonantia, Claritas