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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,88ed72d98e6b3457 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-10-08 17:29:12 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!ucberkeley!cyclone-sf.pbi.net!216.218.192.242!news.he.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2.gnilink.net!nwrdny01.gnilink.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: "Stephane Richard" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada 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> <3F84A3F9.6@comcast.net> Subject: Re: Standard Library Interest? X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Message-ID: Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2003 00:29:10 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 141.149.79.153 X-Complaints-To: abuse@verizon.net X-Trace: nwrdny01.gnilink.net 1065659350 141.149.79.153 (Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:29:10 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 20:29:10 EDT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:508 Date: 2003-10-09T00:29:10+00:00 List-Id: "Robert I. Eachus" wrote in message news:3F84A3F9.6@comcast.net... > 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 I hear ya on the masochists....I admit I tried using it back then. but soon realized that I had 2 choices, go to DOS mode, or die still trying to do any kind of POSIX....guess which door I chose? hehehe -- St�phane Richard "Ada World" Webmaster http://www.adaworld.com