From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,88ed72d98e6b3457 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-08 16:56:05 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!wn13feed!wn11feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!rwcrnsc53.POSTED!not-for-mail Message-ID: <3F84A3F9.6@comcast.net> From: "Robert I. Eachus" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20021120 Netscape/7.01 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Library Interest? References: <3F7F760E.2020901@comcast.net> <3F8035B0.7080902@noplace.com> <3F816A35.4030108@noplace.com> <3F81FBEC.9010103@noplace.com> <6Ingb.30667$541.13861@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> <3F82B4A4.5060301@noplace.com> <3F82F527.3020101@noplace.com> <3F836528.9020906@noplace.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.139.183 X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-Trace: rwcrnsc53 1065657363 24.34.139.183 (Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:56:03 GMT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:56:03 GMT Organization: Comcast Online Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 23:56:04 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:506 Date: 2003-10-08T23:56:04+00:00 List-Id: Stephane Richard wrote: > I'm no latin speaking individual > and I'm curious to know the difference between De-Facto and De-Jure :-). > although I have an idea based on the context if this quote hehe... Roughly "de facto" = "in fact", and "de jure" = "in law". In the standards industry, a de facto standard is something most people use, even though it is not particularly blessed by some standards organization. Windows is a de facto standard, even if you have no idea what will happen when you take some action in Windows, the fact that so many people are using it makes it a de facto standard. Similarly, Linux is a de facto standard, and POSIX is a de jure standard. Is it possible for a version of Linux to be POSIX compliant? Sure. In fact, Windows NT 4.0 was sold as POSIX compliant even if no one other than masochists tried to use the POSIX interface. ;-) -- Robert I. Eachus "Quality is the Buddha. Quality is scientific reality. Quality is the goal of Art. It remains to work these concepts into a practical, down-to-earth context, and for this there is nothing more practical or down-to-earth than what I have been talking about all along...the repair of an old motorcycle." -- from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig