Strict POSIX compliance

There's this based shitposter in the bsd threads who posts often about Adelie Linux, EulerOS, and Inspur K-UX and how they're so much better than the rest because they're fully POSIX compliant and at least two of them are considered true UNIX by the Open Group.
I wanted to open this up a bit more. Ultimately these are all still just GNU/Linux as usual. In fact, EulerOS and K-UX are just based off of RHEL. So what do they do to the OS that makes them truly compliant while RHEL is not? Did they just pay the Open Group enough, or were there actual, substantial changes made? Any that a user or administrator would actually notice?

Attached: POSIX.jpg (539x357, 21K)

Other urls found in this thread:

opengroup.org/openbrand/register/xv7.htm
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>He made an entire thread for the sake of a troll

Attached: Rubber Ducky.png (500x358, 179K)

>he gives (You)s just like that

No one cares about posix and you can be unix by paying enough.

Nigger, I'm genuinely curious. True POSIX might actually be pretty based. Or it could be a waste of time. Probably the latter, but I wanna lern

Even if you're not UNIX even. Hell; macOS does this and not one ounce of code is original to UNIX.

POSIX is just a standard some consortium made regarding how an OS should behave on a technical level. And their go-to model is how Bell Labs UNIX works. Basically, you pay these shills money and have to prove to them that your OS mimics those technical aspects of UNIX that they claim defines an OS. They inspect it and if it checks out, congratulations; you get the certification.

The problem is when you have projects like OpenBSD, where they mismanage the $3850 they receive to port shitty software like Node.js (without keeping it updated); that's why no BSD actually spent any money to have their code officially audited for POSIX compliance.

The only thing that makes them POSIX certified is money, so learning any of those operating systems just because of that makes it a waste of time.
Instead of fiddling around UNIX and suckless autism try to learn the ins and outs of the Big Bloated GNU everyone uses and sometimes loves.

Tell that to the BSDistrofags who think that BSD is still POSIX compliant, even though they haven't had the code audited for it.

FYI, POSIX certification requires both money and a code audit to see if it fits their autism ranking.

The only reason I post that on the OpenBSD threads is because I know how it ticks them off, when they take so much pride in their OS being "more POSIX compliant" than Linux... Especially when they never provide any proof that they actually do things better than Linux, nor does any BSD project have any proof of compliance. So they end up chimping out about me "trolling" them with logic, while they ignore that there are 3 separate Linux distributions that handle abide by POSIX standards better than they can ever prove.

For example, they take pride in BSD programs' footprints being smaller than their Linux counterparts, when their programs actually run so much slower (the excuse being that it's a "security feature"). And even macOS runs its binaries faster; it's nothing to do with security and everything to do with BSD fanboyism.