Re: POSIX

[Alfred M\. Szmidt]

   > If preservation order gives us just a little room, we can replace
   > the foundation and the basement,

   What?  You want to replace the foundation of a skyscraper and you
   think that can be done without making it collapse?

This isn't a skyscraper, so such comparisons are silly.

   It should definitely not include things "because we want POSIX in
   the foundation".

Nobody is arguing that we should implement POSIX in the kernel (I
assume that you mean kernel by foundation).  People are using POSIX as
a kernel implementation, as a system implementation, and as a GUI
implementation.  This is why the whole discussion is hard to follow.
POSIX is and has always been something on top of a kernel, a interface
for users (this includes developers) to use the system, it has zilch
to do with the kernel.  Just because one uses POSIX doesn't mean that
one is somehow making a less secure system contrary to popular notes
around here by some people.  Once again it goes back to something like
the whole chroot() discussion, if something makes the system less
secure: Don't implement that bit, and implement something that does a
similar function.

   It is.  The Hurd is taking awfully long to be released in a stable
   state.  It better be awfully good.  If after so many years we come
   up with something which isn't significantly better then POSIX,
   people will rightfully laugh at us.

Let them laugh.  Never bothered us before, why should it bother us
now?