From: (Nicholas M. Stoughton)
Subject: Standards Update, POSIX.1: System API
Date: 1995/06/16
Message-ID: <3rsf8o$>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 104614557
approved: (Moderator, Sean Eric Fagan)
organization: USENIX Standards Report Editor
newsgroups: comp.std.unix

Submitted-by: (Nicholas M. Stoughton)

                      USENIX Standards Report Editor

          Nicholas M. Stoughton <>, Report Editor

       POSIX.1: System API

       Shravan Pargal <> reports on the
       April 24-28, 1995 meeting in Irvine, Ca.:

       This meeting in Irvine was a busy one for the POSIX.1a
       working group.  Draft 12 of POSIX.1a was sent out to the
       ballot group in November, with the ballot closing on March
       15th, 1995. Ballots were in and needed to be worked on
       during this meeting. The following were the primary agenda
       items at this meeting:

       1.  Removable media plenary

       2.  Ballot resolutions

       The first issue tackled after the meeting was called to
       order was a plenary with the removable media group. Chuck
       DeBaun(Fermilab) presented a proposal to the working group
       for a set of functions for serial media control. The
       proposal covered open(), close(), read() and write() issues
       related to serial media. In addition there was a proposal
       for additional interfaces to formalize and expand ioctl like
       functions (to be known as mtio functions) as related to
       serial media.

       The working group split up into smaller groups of two or
       more members to tackle the large number of ballots that
       needed resolutions. Each group was assigned a chapter to
       work on and resolve ``easy'' ballot requests. In addition
       the groups tried to sort the ballots by issue, forming sub-
       groups within each chapter. The groups then brought lists of
       issues back to the working group as a whole for discussion.
       After working on ballot classification and resolution for 2
       days, the group discussed the state of the returned ballots.
       Ballots returned seemed to be split into three roughly equal
       chunks: checkpoint/restart, resource limits, and everything
       else. The working group decided (thanks to a suggestion from
       Nick Stoughton and Chuck Karish), to split the POSIX.1a
       project authorization request (PAR) into three PARs,
       submitting checkpoint/restart and resource limits as
       separate standards. Two new PARs will be submitted to the
       SEC 45 days in advance of the next meeting.  However since
       the earliest this could be approved is in July, the working
       group decided that a final decision would be held off until
       the July meeting.

                                  - 2 -

       In between ballot resolution, discussions on were held on
       proposals for getshconf() submitted by David Willcox and
       signals submitted by Alan Rowe. The getshconf() interface
       was defined to meet a need to separate POSIX.1 and POSIX.2
       symbols and yet be able to get one from the other in a
       portable form. The signals discussion will continue through

       The POSIX.1a WG will continue to work on resolving ballot
       objections and interpretations resulting from the Draft 12
       ballot. A final decision to go ahead and form the new
       project teams for checkpoint/restart and resource limits
       will be made at the next meeting.

Volume-Number: Volume 35, Number 39

			  SCO's Case Against IBM

November 12, 2003 - Jed Boal from Eyewitness News KSL 5 TV provides an
overview on SCO's case against IBM. Darl McBride, SCO's president and CEO,
talks about the lawsuit's impact and attacks. Jason Holt, student and 
Linux user, talks about the benefits of code availability and the merits 
of the SCO vs IBM lawsuit. See SCO vs IBM.

Note: The materials and information included in these Web pages are not to
be used for any other purpose other than private study, research, review
or criticism.