From owner-freebsd-current Sun Mar 23 11:27:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id LAA22318 for current-outgoing; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 11:27:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id LAA22305 for ; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 11:27:04 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA20768; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 12:14:00 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199703231914.MAA20768@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: 2.2R (src 2.2 211): == dialing To: rb@gid.co.uk (Bob Bishop) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 12:14:00 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Bob Bishop" at Mar 23, 97 10:59:25 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > If anyone is prepared to take the position that it ain't broke, I would > value a _concise_ justification of that position. > > If anyone mentions POSIX, I'm likely to go into a sulk :-| I happen to disagree with the BSD interpretation of POSIX in this regard. SVR4 is certified POSIX compliant, and they don't do what we do: they propagate group SIGHUP to all process group members. You can argue until you are blue in the face that SVR4 is "wrong", but to prove it to me you will have to get an SVR4 box to fail POSIX compliance testing. You can't argue with success. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.