bug#12794: Bug in dd: it sends wrong messages to stderr

[Linda Walsh]

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.