GNU bug report logs - #12794
Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 12794 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 12794 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ganton <kubry <at> terra.com>
To: bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
Subject: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2012 16:28:49 +0100

Dear sirs:

I send you a bug report.

# DESCRIPTION

Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr.

For example, when I do backups, I see "errors" from dd... that really aren't. 

# WAY TO REPRODUCE THE BUG

A user can execute:
   partition=$(mount | awk '$2=="on" && $3=="/" {print $1}')
   sudo dd if="$partition" of=/tmp/copseg.dd count=1 bs=512 >/dev/null
and then he sees something like this in his screen:
  1+0 records in
  1+0 records out
  512 bytes (512 B) copied, 0,000129625 s, 3,9 MB/s

# EXPECTED RESULTS:

The user should see nothing, as there was no error and stdout was redirected 
to /dev/null.

Message #10 received at 12794-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
To: Ganton <kubry <at> terra.com>
Cc: 12794-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 12:08:45 -0700

On 11/03/2012 08:28 AM, Ganton wrote:

> when I do backups, I see "errors" from dd... that really aren't. 

You have a point, but I'm afraid that dd is documented to behave
that way, and it's part of the POSIX standard, and lots of people
depend on it.  To turn off the chatter, use "dd status=noxfer".

Message #13 received at 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>
To: 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr
Date: Sat, 03 Nov 2012 23:46:56 +0000

package coreutils
tags 12794 notabug
stop

On 11/03/2012 07:08 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 11/03/2012 08:28 AM, Ganton wrote:
>
>> when I do backups, I see "errors" from dd... that really aren't.
>
> You have a point, but I'm afraid that dd is documented to behave
> that way, and it's part of the POSIX standard, and lots of people
> depend on it.  To turn off the chatter, use "dd status=noxfer".

Or the newer more encompassing "status=none"

thanks,
Pádraig.

Message #18 received at 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ganton <kubry <at> terra.com>
To: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>,
 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 22:43:09 +0100

Hello: 

> > when I do backups, I see "errors" from dd... that really aren't.
> > [...]
> > 1+0 records in
> > 1+0 records out
> > 512 bytes (512 B) copied, 0,000129625 s, 3,9 MB/s
> > [...]
> 
> > You have a point, but I'm afraid that dd is documented to behave
> that way, and it's part of the POSIX standard, and lots of people
> depend on it.  [...] 

Many ones will doubt that the POSIX standard is so broken that forces people 
to see messages in stderr that are not errors and not wanted. That even goes 
against the Unix philosophy, for example, against the "Rule of Silence: When a 
program has nothing surprising to say, it should say nothing" 
(http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html) and, even less, say it in stderr.

> [...] To turn off the chatter, use "dd status=noxfer".

Thanks for the information. If the user utilizes "dd status=noxfer", he gets 
rid of lines like
	512 bytes (512 B) copied, 0,000129625 s, 3,9 MB/s
in stderr, although he keeps seeing lines like
        1+0 records in
        1+0 records out
in stderr. Does anyone think a new report bug should be filled so that an 
optional dd parameter could eliminate that last kind of messages from stderr?

Greetings!

Message #21 received at 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
To: Ganton <kubry <at> terra.com>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>, 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 14:48:44 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 11/05/2012 02:43 PM, Ganton wrote:

> Many ones will doubt that the POSIX standard is so broken that forces people 
> to see messages in stderr that are not errors and not wanted. That even goes 
> against the Unix philosophy, for example, against the "Rule of Silence: When a 
> program has nothing surprising to say, it should say nothing" 

Sorry, but dd is older than POSIX, and POSIX standardized existing
practice rather than forcing dd to change.  You're 40 years too late on
this one.

> Thanks for the information. If the user utilizes "dd status=noxfer", he gets 
> rid of lines like
> 	512 bytes (512 B) copied, 0,000129625 s, 3,9 MB/s
> in stderr, although he keeps seeing lines like
>         1+0 records in
>         1+0 records out
> in stderr. Does anyone think a new report bug should be filled so that an 
> optional dd parameter could eliminate that last kind of messages from stderr?

No need to report a new bug - we already told you that coreutils 8.20
added 'dd status=none' to silence even that information.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake <at> redhat.com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #24 received at 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ganton <kubry <at> terra.com>
To: 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org,
 Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>
Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 23:56:47 +0100

> Sorry, but dd is older than POSIX
Paul Eggert wrote "dd is [...] part of the POSIX standard" and I wrote 
consequently, if the dd specification is broken, then the POSIX standard is 
broken, too.

> You're 40 years too late on this one.
This kind of condescending attitudes do not improve matters.

> No need to report a new bug - we already told you that coreutils 8.20
> added 'dd status=none' to silence even that information.
"We already told you"? Who is Eric Blake talking to? Nobody talked there about 
coreutils 8.20 or 'dd status=none'. Paul Eggert kindly wrote about 'dd 
status=noxfer'. Eric Blake can re-read the thread if he wants to, and if he 
doesn't want to, at least he can stop talking people condescendingly after not 
really reading the conversations.

Message #27 received at 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
To: Ganton <kubry <at> terra.com>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>, 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2012 16:11:31 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 11/05/2012 03:56 PM, Ganton wrote:
>> Sorry, but dd is older than POSIX
> Paul Eggert wrote "dd is [...] part of the POSIX standard" and I wrote 
> consequently, if the dd specification is broken, then the POSIX standard is 
> broken, too.
> 
>> You're 40 years too late on this one.
> This kind of condescending attitudes do not improve matters.

I'm sorry if I came across as condescending - that was not my intent.
Email is a poor forum for hearing the emotions intended.

But the point remains - if you think POSIX is broken for having
standardized dd behavior (40 years old) that existed at the time POSIX
was first written (20 years old), then please take up your complaint
with POSIX.  Membership in the Austin Group is free of charge:
http://www.opengroup.org/austin/.  I will give you fair warning in
advance that you are unlikely to convince the Austin Group to make any
changes, because they are reluctant to change historical behavior that
has been so firmly entrenched for so many years, but more power to you
if you succeed.  Remember, dd is already an oddball for taking arguments
in the form of 'param=val' instead of the more traditional '-<letter>
val', precisely because dd is so much older than the bulk of the other
utilities that were standardized by POSIX; that is, dd existed prior to
the common practice of being silent on success that exists in many of
the other utilities also standardized by POSIX.

Meanwhile, Coreutils can't do anything about the default situation
unless you can convince the POSIX people to change the standard; and
likewise, we can, and have, done something about it if you are willing
to use extensions beyond POSIX, in the form of status=none.

> 
>> No need to report a new bug - we already told you that coreutils 8.20
>> added 'dd status=none' to silence even that information.
> "We already told you"? Who is Eric Blake talking to? Nobody talked there about 
> coreutils 8.20 or 'dd status=none'.

Pádraig mentioned 'dd status=none' in the message before your reply
addressed to Paul, when looking at the thread:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2012-11/msg00012.html
or at the bug report:
http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12794#13

> Paul Eggert kindly wrote about 'dd 
> status=noxfer'. Eric Blake can re-read the thread if he wants to, and if he 
> doesn't want to, at least he can stop talking people condescendingly after not 
> really reading the conversations.

Again, I apologize if you are mis-reading my intent.  And yes, I did
re-read the thread, both before my first thread mentioning why POSIX
standardized things the way they did (and therefore why coreutils can
only add extensions, such as status=none, rather than changing the
behavior by default), and again before writing this reply; my assumption
(perhaps mistaken) was that you had read Pádraig's reply.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake <at> redhat.com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #30 received at 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Ganton <kubry <at> terra.com>
To: Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
Cc: Paul Eggert <eggert <at> cs.ucla.edu>, 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2012 00:50:32 +0100

Thanks, Eric Blake, for your explanations.

About what the "conversation" really was, you made clear that there was 
another person, "Pádraig", that sent a text that arrived to some people but 
not to other ones (at least me, maybe because he sent an e-mail and I wasn't 
in the "recipient list"), so I wasn't told what someone thought I was.

About the "unlikely to convince the Austin Group", I think you are right. 
Anyway, I hope that some day people will be better without some "unique", 
anti-standard behaviors that can be corrected :-), specially those that 
require few changes to the existing codebase.

Meanwhile, I applaud the latest addition of parameters like "status=none" that 
you have made, to try to correct what is possible nowadays.

Greetings!

Message #33 received at 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com>
To: Ganton <kubry <at> terra.com>
Cc: 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2012 16:57:14 -0700

Ganton wrote:
> > Sorry, but dd is older than POSIX
> Paul Eggert wrote "dd is [...] part of the POSIX standard" and I wrote 
> consequently, if the dd specification is broken, then the POSIX standard is 
> broken, too.

The task of the POSIX standard was to document existing behavior and
standardize it so that there wouldn't be even more differences between
systems.  Of course lately it has become a design-by-committee.  It is
hard for people to resist these temptations.  But standardizing on the
behavior that is already in existence is a good thing because it
allows people to write programs that not only run on their own system
but ones that stand a chance of running on another person's system too.

> > You're 40 years too late on this one.
> This kind of condescending attitudes do not improve matters.

Please no ad-hominem attacks.  Thanks.

I didn't read that as any condescending attitude.  I read it plainly
that the dd command has been around for a long, long time.  It's
option syntax and behavior isn't common with other programs.  It is
unique.  Many commands were we written uniquely back then.  There
wasn't any best-practice to follow.

Now here it is forty years later and the dd command and others have
been doing their job all of this time.  Changing core behaviors such
as this always have consequences.  That is why it is set up as an
option.  If it is desired to be different from the standard then add
the status=none option.

> > No need to report a new bug - we already told you that coreutils 8.20
> > added 'dd status=none' to silence even that information.
>
> "We already told you"? Who is Eric Blake talking to? Nobody talked
> there about coreutils 8.20 or 'dd status=none'. Paul Eggert kindly
> wrote about 'dd status=noxfer'. Eric Blake can re-read the thread if
> he wants to, and if he doesn't want to, at least he can stop talking
> people condescendingly after not really reading the conversations.

Unfortunately Pádraig missed you in the recipient list when replying
to Paul.  See Pádraig response with that item in this message logged
here:

  http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12794#13

Generally we CC the original poster but for the rest of us we are all
already subscribed and so we chop off the extra CCs so that we don't
get too many copies.  But unfortunately a (mis)feature of the debbugs
bug tracking software is that it doesn't automatically CC the bug
submitter.  (I don't know if that is set up with debbugs.gnu.org but
generally with the BTS the 12794-submitter <at> debbugs.gnu.org address
would go to the bug submitter.  So it would be both 12794@ and
12794-submitter@ to get both.)

Bob

Message #36 received at 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Pádraig Brady <P <at> draigBrady.com>
To: Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com>
Cc: 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ganton <kubry <at> terra.com>
Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr
Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2012 01:22:00 +0000

On 11/05/2012 11:57 PM, Bob Proulx wrote:
> Unfortunately Pádraig missed you in the recipient list when replying
> to Paul.  See Pádraig response with that item in this message logged
> here:
>
>    http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=12794#13
>
> Generally we CC the original poster but for the rest of us we are all
> already subscribed and so we chop off the extra CCs so that we don't
> get too many copies.  But unfortunately a (mis)feature of the debbugs
> bug tracking software is that it doesn't automatically CC the bug
> submitter.  (I don't know if that is set up with debbugs.gnu.org but
> generally with the BTS the 12794-submitter <at> debbugs.gnu.org address
> would go to the bug submitter.  So it would be both 12794@ and
> 12794-submitter@ to get both.)

That is a misfeature.

Another that compounds it is when you send email from $from to
$bugnum-done <at> debbugs.gnu.org, the corresponding email has this header:

Mail-Followup-To: $bugnum <at> debbugs.gnu.org, $from

I guess that's so $bugnum is used in future rather than $bugnum-done,
but note how none of the original To: or Cc: are included.
So that would be another bug IMHO.

Thus when I "reply all" in thunderbird at least,
the response misses anyone on the To: or Cc:
The resoning behind the mail client behavior is:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Thunderbird:Help_Documentation:Mail-Followup-To_and_Mail-Reply-To

cheers,
Pádraig.

Message #39 received at 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Linda Walsh <coreutils <at> tlinx.org>
To: Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com>
Cc: 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ganton <kubry <at> terra.com>
Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 01:06:18 -0800

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I'm wanting to clarify two issues about this exchange.

One issue is regarding personal interactions, and the other issues is 
about the nature of the POSIX standard.  These are observations -- not a 
call to action.


Bob Proulx wrote:
> Ganton wrote:
>   
>>> Sorry, but dd is older than POSIX
>>>       
>> Paul Eggert wrote "dd is [...] part of the POSIX standard" and I wrote 
>> consequently, if the dd specification is broken, then the POSIX standard is 
>> broken, too.
>>     
>
> The task of the POSIX standard was to document existing behavior and
> standardize it so that there wouldn't be even more differences between
> systems.  Of course lately it has become a design-by-committee.  It is
> hard for people to resist these temptations.  But standardizing on the
> behavior that is already in existence is a good thing because it
> allows people to write programs that not only run on their own system
> but ones that stand a chance of running on another person's system too.
>
>   
>>> You're 40 years too late on this one.
>>>       
>> This kind of condescending attitudes do not improve matters.
>>     
>
> Please no ad-hominem attacks.  Thanks.
>   
----

What is an ad-hominem attack?  Isn't that an attack against the person?

Clearly, the poster was talking about an attitude that came across as 
condescending.   I've been told on this list, that using "you" was 
considered attacking, even though in my writing I'd specifically stayed 
away from any name-calling or ad-hominem attacks, the simple use of 
"you" was considered enough to make my message "attacking". 

   Clearly, one can see certain messages colored in different ways, 
regardless of intent. 

However, there are two issues I would like to point out here. First,  
the original statement talked about an attitude that appeared indicated 
in a specific statement and didn't talk about a person, it doesn't seem 
possible that "ad hominem" would apply.  Second, during a conversation 
that became heated, when I asked if I had called the other person any 
names, or engaged, in any personal attacks, I was told 'not', but that I 
had used the word "you" -- thus making it "attacking".  

If "you" is sufficient to judge writing as being "attacking" (on some or 
any level), then calling the recipient of such language "out of line"  
for describing such language as "attacking, (specifically, 
condescending),  seems as though a double standard is being used.

This isn't NOT meant to be a judgment, as 'you', is a standard part of 
speech, mean to direct one's speaking to another.   Calling it an attack 
is certainly a subjective call.   I'm not wanting a argument or 
discussion about this -- I'm only wanting to point out the 
inconsistencies in how judgments are being applied and a trend to seeing 
them applied is specific directions.   I presume this is unconscious, 
but in both cases it did involve POSIX, which is being used on a subtle 
level to control the Open source community -- even though the standard 
was purchased by Corporate wealth.  That something appears "open" to 
contributing, means nothing by itself.  I've seen more than one open 
source projects that claimed to be "open", only to see patches to 
correct design problems, persistently ignored for personal or political 
reasons -- even when such flaws clearly couldn't be justified on 
objective, sound, engineering principles.


--===--

Also some have said POSIX was "descriptive" and such is stated in their 
initial mission statement.  ... To use MS-lingo, this was the "Embrace" 
phase.   POSIX has moved beyond that phase and now is in the "Extend" 
phase, where it has become prescriptive -- not describing existing 
practice, but dictating new and incompatible behaviors.

Besides the shift from descriptive to prescriptive, POSIX has also 
shifted from being a program-portability standard -- a description of 
features programs could rely on being there in order to aid portability, 
it has also expanded into prescribing User Interface behaviors that NOT 
ONLY, exceed it's purpose in providing a base for program portability, 
but actually harm program portability.   Prioritizing user-interface 
design on the command line over program portability goes against the 
core-purpose of the standard, yet this is what has happened, 
approximately after the 2001 POSIX updates.

The POSIX standard, 'now', no longer follows it's initial mission 
statement, and is is now a corporate tool for controlling the open 
source community. 

Whether or not POSIX is being moved into the extinguish phase is 
arguable while it is in process, but it must be noted, that Microsoft, 
which supported POSIX in its earliest forms in the late 90's with it's 
POSIX subsystem, now feels they have no more need to support or provide 
POSIX compatibility, since starting with Windows 8, their POSIX 
subsystem is dead.

Buying into POSIX changes that reduce functionality and break previous 
program compatibility would seem to be a good way to accelerate the last 
phase, but ironically, reverting incompatible behaviors is now seen as 
creating new incompatibilities -- even when it would be impossible for 
new programs to have been written to rely on those incompatibilities as 
they are features that have been removed -- i.e. it would be impossible 
for a useful program to rely on something that is guaranteed not to work.

So -- I'm just clarifying: POSIX isn't want it used to be.

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #42 received at 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bernhard Voelker <mail <at> bernhard-voelker.de>
To: Linda Walsh <coreutils <at> tlinx.org>
Cc: 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, Ganton <kubry <at> terra.com>,
	Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com>
Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:14:22 +0100

Dear Linda,

On 11/07/2012 10:06 AM, Linda Walsh wrote:
> That something appears "open" to 
> contributing, means nothing by itself.

yes, it does (see below).

> I've seen more than one open 
> source projects that claimed to be "open", only to see patches to 
> correct design problems, persistently ignored for personal or political 
> reasons -- even when such flaws clearly couldn't be justified on 
> objective, sound, engineering principles.

That's the idea behind "open source" - if you don't like what a program
is doing, or when you have a special reason for the tool behaving different
in your personal, political, or even commercial environment, then take
the sources, modify them to your needs and use the changed tool. Even
spread it around if you like (with the changed sources of course ...).
Everybody knows there are other tools with other licenses where you don't
get this chance.

[hey, now I also avoid using 'you', funny.
 So let's use that *BAD* word again. ;-)  ]

The problem comes when you want to have your change in *that* package
everyone is using, e.g. coreutils. As there are *many* users, these tools
have to do the right thing for them all. And if the change would break
what many users are expecting from that tool, or even what they are used
to, then there must be very good reasons to do the change.

Going back to #12794: there were several misunderstanding in the discussion,
which IMO are all clear now: Bob referred to a mail of Padraig which
never reached Ganton. Well ... let's move on.
Re. dd's output: comparing that little glitch regarding output
behavior we are used from newer tools with the power of dd, I must say
I'm very happy how it is. And if somebody does't like that, then [s]he
is free to use the new "status=none" (unless using a non-GNU dd, of course).

Have a nice day,
Berny

Message #45 received at 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bob Proulx <bob <at> proulx.com>
To: 12794 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 12:55:32 -0700

Linda Walsh wrote:
> Bob Proulx wrote:
> > > > You're 40 years too late on this one.
> > > This kind of condescending attitudes do not improve matters.
> >
> > Please no ad-hominem attacks.  Thanks.
> 
> What is an ad-hominem attack?  Isn't that an attack against the person?
>
> Clearly, the poster was talking about an attitude that came across
> as condescending.

Yes.  And I am sure that it wasn't meant kindly.  It certainly wasn't
a neutral tone.  It was a negative statement about the sender which
contained emotional overtones.  Even though it didn't contain "you" it
was still clearly targeting the message human person sender with a
negative emotional statement.

If I were going to challenge the statement I would say something more
along the lines of "Just because a bug is long standing isn't it still
a bug and as such shouldn't it still be fixed?  We have fixed long
standing bugs before.  Why is this one different?"  This never moves
toward any attacks against the person.  It stays purely on the topic
points.  (Meanwhile note that I am simply playing advocate here and
think that status=none is the best answer.)

> I've been told on this list, that using "you" was considered
> attacking, even though in my writing I'd specifically stayed away
> from any name-calling or ad-hominem attacks, the simple use of "you"
> was considered enough to make my message "attacking".

The use of "you" or lack of it doesn't always mean one thing or
another.  Language is subtle and it means what we want it to mean.
Any hard rule always has ways to be subverted.

But use of "you" is definitely a warning sign because it is
designating a person as the recipient of the exchange.  If the sender
is saying good things then the recipient won't mind and perhaps will
be flattered.  But if not then the recipient is going to feel the heat
as a flame.

Please keep discussion on the mailing lists neutral and professional
in tone.  It is that simple.

> Also some have said POSIX was "descriptive" and such is stated in
> their initial mission statement.  ... To use MS-lingo, this was the
> "Embrace" phase.   POSIX has moved beyond that phase and now is in
> the "Extend" phase, where it has become prescriptive -- not
> describing existing practice, but dictating new and incompatible
> behaviors.

FWIW I agree.  I have said so myself on several occasions.

> Besides the shift from descriptive to prescriptive, POSIX has also
> shifted from being a program-portability standard -- a description
> of features programs could rely on being there in order to aid
> portability, it has also expanded into prescribing User Interface
> behaviors that NOT ONLY, exceed it's purpose in providing a base for
> program portability, but actually harm program portability.
> Prioritizing user-interface design on the command line over program
> portability goes against the core-purpose of the standard, yet this
> is what has happened, approximately after the 2001 POSIX updates.

Yep.

> The POSIX standard, 'now', no longer follows it's initial mission
> statement, and is is now a corporate tool for controlling the open
> source community.

No.  The Austin Group oversees the standard.  Anyone can contribute.
The only issue is available time and effort and the ability to work
with a group.  But I don't think it is under corporate control.  I
think the community of new generation contributors has more control.

> Whether or not POSIX is being moved into the extinguish phase is
> arguable while it is in process, but it must be noted, that
> Microsoft, which supported POSIX in its earliest forms in the late
> 90's with it's POSIX subsystem, now feels they have no more need to
> support or provide POSIX compatibility, since starting with Windows
> 8, their POSIX subsystem is dead.

I don't use Microsoft systems when I can avoid it.  So this particular
issue doesn't affect me very much.  Although I care anyway since so
many other people use Microsoft systems.  Because I do travel and bank
and watch movies and do all of the things that people do with their
life and a very large amount of that is affected by Microsoft
software.  But it is their company.  What would be the proposal to
improve the situation at Microsoft?  *Can* anything be done?  I don't
think so.  They are going to do what they are going to do.  They are
one of the proverbial 800lb gorillas.

> Buying into POSIX changes that reduce functionality and break
> previous program compatibility would seem to be a good way to
> accelerate the last phase, but ironically, reverting incompatible
> behaviors is now seen as creating new incompatibilities -- even when
> it would be impossible for new programs to have been written to rely
> on those incompatibilities as they are features that have been
> removed -- i.e. it would be impossible for a useful program to rely
> on something that is guaranteed not to work.

Since we are talking about 'dd' then POSIX hasn't *changed* anything
that I know of on that topic.  It is the same as it has been.  And so
has 'dd'.  So I don't know what you are talking about.  POSIX is
stabilizing dd at this point.  HP-UX dd, AIX dd, GNU dd.  (If you are
talking about head and tail and the -n option changes then I agree.
But we were talking about dd here.  Let's not talk about head or tail
here in this dd bug log.  We have drifted off and around enough as it
is already.  If you want to talk about head and tail -n then let's
talk about it in the coreutils <at> gnu.org discussion list.  But that is
also so much water under the bridge.  I would rather not drag through
it again.)

> So -- I'm just clarifying: POSIX isn't want it used to be.

It never was.  :-)

  The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to
  be. --Paul Valery 

Bob

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.