I think you are right. POSIX-like would be a better word. J' On Sat, Nov 15, 2014 at 02:47:15PM -0200, Bruno F??lix Rezende Ribeiro wrote: Em Sat, 15 Nov 2014 16:48:15 +0100 John Darrington escreveu: > As I understand it, it only even comes close, if the POSIXLY_CORRECT > environment variable is set. Even then there are some differences. I think you are right. However, they often use "POSIX-compliant" loosely. Something that would be better described as "POSIX-like" or "almost POSIX-compliant for our practical needs", or even "Unix-like-like-the-one-we-used-to-build-and-run-our-code-successfully". Absolute and strict compliance to a given standard, with almost mathematical certainty, is something rather theoretical. I'm not an expert, but I think that, even without 'POSIXLY_CORRECT' set, GNU is a quite good "POSIX-compliant" OS in the vulgar sense, given that it satisfies the majority of programs intended to run under "POSIX-compliant" operating systems. And, IMHO, that's what they usually mean. -- ,= ,-_-. =. Bruno F??lix Rezende Ribeiro (oitofelix) [0x28D618AF] ((_/)o o(\_)) There is no system but GNU; `-'(. .)`-' GNU Linux-Libre is one of its official kernels; \_/ All software must be free as in freedom; -- PGP Public key ID: 1024D/2DE827B3 fingerprint = 8797 A26D 0854 2EAB 0285 A290 8A67 719C 2DE8 27B3 See http://sks-keyservers.net or any PGP keyserver for public key.