On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 19:51 -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote: > The original GNU development platform, that is correct. Even tho > you are refering to SunOS (prior to 4.1). Well, yes, a lot of GNU was developed prior. But Linus based a lot of his decisions on later versions of the early '90s. > No, not LSB. It is another standard, much older than that. > ... > I'll disagree with you on this as soon as I find the standard I'm > talking about. > ... > As I said, I was not talking about LSB, let alone 2.1. It is a standard > that even AIX (from IBM) follows, even tho I'm not sure about Solaris. > I would suppose it does, tho. I'll find it ... Eventually. It if applies to AIX, but not Solaris, then I give up? I'll believe you if you can show System-V documentation from AT&T that matches _all_ of the perpetual licensees from their standardization efforts of 1986+. But I have a feeling that AIX, HP/UX, Digital/Tru64 and many others aren't going to match either. > I know it is not. This is just to clarify a technical point that > is of interest for us all. A point that we don't agree uppon, and > we are both trying to find solid enough arguments to clear a > missunderstanding. Regardless, at this point, Debian, Solaris and several other, System-V style inits _differ_ with Red Hat and this "UNIX-like" standard. That was my point, there is no "standard." > You can rest assured I don't take anything as a personal attack > easily. I always tend to consider the other person is trying to > help me understand something better. Have no worries about it :) > Let me make a even more generic summary. Standarization or no standarization, > Linux Distros do have different runlevel characteristic, and that > should be taken into consideration. I'll conceed defeat on that point. > As for the standarization, I'm still looking for the standard, > so I'll wait until my memory is proven to be wrong, which won't > be the first time. Actually, if you find it it will be very useful to me as well. It would be a thorn in the side of many distros, even if all of the perpetual licensees didn't agree to it. -- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith at ieee.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- It is mathematically impossible for someone who makes more than you to be anything but richer than you. Any tax rate that penalizes them will also penalize you similarly (to those below you, and then below them). Linear algebra, let alone differential calculus or even ele- mentary concepts of limits, is mutually exclusive with US journalism. So forget even attempting to explain how tax cuts work. ;->