Hi all,
Okay, here's what I capture:
1. Review the Guide to the program
(https://posix.opengroup.org/certification_guide.html).
2. Complete the requirements:
-Understanding the certification program and process
-Testing the product informally
-Applying for certification
-Formal testing and submission of results
3. It looks like re-testing can be requested at their discretion.
I think that Debian (for example) would fall under the free
testing/certification clause, as described here:
Under the Open Group's POSIX FAQs
(https://posix.opengroup.org/posixfaq.html):
What test suites do I need and where can they be obtained from?
"If you are an open source project, a 12 month license is available
at no fee."
I'm thinking that RedHat would probably have a straightforward time
given the situation with Euler? These are interesting topics to discuss.
It is my understanding that many of the projects that are adjacent to
OpenBSD already have POSIX compliance layers, and I also mentioned there
that I do not see the value-add in Canada if the standard has been
rescinded, and stays rescinded, by the Government of Canada (so that's
the crux and I am not sure who or how to change that).
-Katie
On 2025-02-12 20:52, Katie wrote:
Hi all,
Another point that I mention in my talk is how open source projects can
get free POSIX certification. I wrote a post on that to the OpenBSD
mailing list because they were a particularly helpful and supportive
group - I'll see if I can find that. Again, the goal would be to
support Portability (which I would argue support safety and security)
but I know that open source software is more the Government of Canada's
thing and that's cool.
-Katie
On 2025-02-12 18:54, Dmitriy Korovkin via linux wrote:
--
Dmitriy Korovkin <dnkorovkin [ at ] gmail [ dot ] com>
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:51:34 -0500
Dmitriy Korovkin via linux <linux [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org> wrote:
Dear fellow Linux and UNIX enthusiasts,
I surely need to add some more words to my joke. My position on the
POSIX and Government is that POSIX is the software compatibility
standard while the Government has to be concerned with safety. Ok, I
would understand if the Government would adopt some of the industry
safety standards and make them "Government approved". ARINC 633 could
be such an example.
ARINC 653 :-/
Speaking of POSIX, I, as a Canadian taxpayer, would really like to
know what does the Government do with POSIX standard in general. I
would understand that some of the departments could adopt POSIX as
their internal standard in order to be compatible with each other. I
would even completely understand if the Government decide to spend
funds reasonably and where possible use OpenSource sofrware and, if
the software is modified, upstream the changes to the communities.
Though, I do not understand when the Governement makes POSIX approved
or not approved because it is not the Government's business to deal
with software compatibility, it is the software industry business.
Regards,
--
Dmitriy Korovkin
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:35:29 -0500
Katie via linux <linux [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org> wrote:
> Hi Dianne,
>
> You make a great point - I do mention in the talk how Xenix was Unix
> compliant, and Euler went through the entire POSIX certification
> process. I think that we need a baseline to support portability for all
> the operating systems, but it seems that the Government of Canada wants
> to focus on software licensing/Open Source Software (given all the
> policies, ex. “4.4.3.12 Ensuring open source software is encouraged, and
> where used, contributing to the communities whose work is being
> leveraged.” https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=32601).
> Honestly, I don't dislike that approach but it definitely sucks/will
> suck for a few organizations.
>
> -Katie
>
> On 2025-02-12 18:15, Dianne Skoll via linux wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 18:02:23 -0500
> > Katie <katie [ at ] herricane [ dot ] ca> wrote:
> >
> >> It's interesting that you say that! I would also like insights about
> >> the rationale behind this particular decision [to remove POSIX from
> >> its standards and policies---dfs] (otherwise it seems like cancel
> >> culture as Dmitriy identified).
> >
> > We have to be careful. Certifications can be used as weapons. For
> > example, AFAIK there is not a single Linux distro that is
> > POSIX-certified. So demanding POSIX-certification for UNIX-like
> > systems would disqualify Linux.
> >
> > I seem to recall that MSFT had a short-lived "POSIX Subsystem for
> > Windows"
> > as a way to meet the POSIX requirement on paper. So for a while, we
> > were in the position where Windows could claim POSIX certification
> > while Linux couldn't.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Dianne.
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe send a blank message to
> > linux+unsubscribe [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
> > To get help send a blank message to linux+help [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
> > To visit the archives: https://lists.linux-ottawa.org
>
> To unsubscribe send a blank message to linux+unsubscribe [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
> To get help send a blank message to linux+help [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
> To visit the archives: https://lists.linux-ottawa.org
>
To unsubscribe send a blank message to
linux+unsubscribe [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
To get help send a blank message to linux+help [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
To visit the archives: https://lists.linux-ottawa.org
To unsubscribe send a blank message to
linux+unsubscribe [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
To get help send a blank message to linux+help [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
To visit the archives: https://lists.linux-ottawa.org
To unsubscribe send a blank message to linux+unsubscribe [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
To get help send a blank message to linux+help [ at ] linux-ottawa [ dot ] org
To visit the archives: https://lists.linux-ottawa.org