Re: [Ktechlab-devel] appology

[Celelibi <cel...@gm...>]

2008/11/16 Celelibi <cel...@gm...>

>
>
> 2008/11/15 Alan Grimes <ag...@sp...>
>
>> I guess I owe all you d00dz, an apology or an explaination or something
>> for my explosion the other day.
>>
>> Now that my rage has subsided (somewhat) and my foot is feeling a bit
>> better, I'll get into a bit more detail about why I'm so frustrated.
>>
>> The biggest problem with manpages is that you can't flip through them.
>> So therefore you are highly unlikely to learn anything that you don't
>> already know by reading manpages.
>>
>> Knowing this, I have spent vast amounts of money (both money I could
>> afford and money I couldn't!) on books that billed themselves as being
>> comprehensive resources on many fields in programming including the core
>> standards of Unix. Often times these searches were coupled with a desire
>> to write my own operating system so I made an extra effort to identify
>> functionality which I might use to prototype my OS.
>>
>> So when I was confronted by a question about whether Unix supported an
>> operating-system like feature, I was confident it didn't, because I had
>> done my homework and determined that to be the case.
>>
>> Then to learn not only that I was wrong, but that the functionality was
>> in the 2001 version of POSIX, I was infuriated because I had thought I
>> had put in enough effort to know otherwise. (Amazon.com does not seem to
>> carry any books on Posix 200x, and the IEEE only seems to have very
>> expen$ive downloads, no actual books..).
>>
>> In any event, I shouldn't have taken my frustrations out so brutally on
>> the group. =\
>>
>>
> Hi,
> I think the fact I'm not native english speaker made that I didn't
> understood you whole rage. :p
>
> You can read and/or print (but not redistribute) the whole IEEE standard
> 1003.1. (aka POSIX standard) from there :
> http://www.unix.org/single_unix_specification/
> Registration is free.
> But it's a standard, it is not intended to be a comprehensive document...
>
>
> Celelibi
>

Hum, I think I misused the word "comprehensive". Since it's a standard, it
*is* comprehensive.
I wanted to say that it doest not explain what "things" can be used to do.
How things can be used together to do something else.
And it may not be fully understandable if you don't know what it is talking
about.


Celelibi