Re: reverse text
"George Georgalis" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.netbsd.help |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 11:28:17PM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote: >I think the first thing to realize that is is rather much outside the >scope of NetBSD. I see that. but I don't entirely agree. How can programmers or users be expected to conform to or utilize a standard when it is difficult or impossible to know where to look or to even know if a standard exists? After using netbsd for nearly two years, one thing I appreciate over Linux (where I have most of my experience) is adherence to best practice (and presumably standards). In Linux it seems like somebody reinvented the wheel around every corner. If a guideline where available as to which standards are acceptable for netbsd, where and when they are used, where they came from, and what they are authoritative for; where they are published and where reasonable or possible, even included; that would go a long ways to getting everyone on the same page--I'm not suggesting a finite set of standards should be used or people should be discouraged from making up their own, rather the established standards could be more visible. >Second, the ANSI standard isn't the only way of doing things. I understand that, what I'm describing is a means by which developers and users can use to make an educated decision on which standard is appropriate (vs not knowing if a standard was available at all). >The >termcap is a fairly good source of information, even if it isn't complete. >But the termcap file is huge! But I would say that is a good place to >start if you want information, unless you want to read standards that >might or might not be relevant for you. I'm thinking more about regulated deployment than my immediate needs. A STANDARDS section of man pages to describe which standard(s) the author used (and where to find them); along with a standards(5) page to summarize the most common choices available. >Terminals exist outside of NetBSD. It's like if we would start >documenting how RS-232 works in NetBSD, just because we happen to have >serial ports. I appreciate netbsd is not authoritative for most of the standards it is built on, but if a path for discovery was begun, well it would be a lot easier to make serial devices or drivers. Your description of POSIX, ANSI, ISO relationships was informative, Johnny. Disclosure of relevant standards, who is authoritative over them and their hierarchy would be a valuable addition to netbsd, in my personal opinion. :) // George -- George Georgalis, systems architect, administrator <IXOYE><