Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: Geoff Clare Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer Subject: Re: Text based synchronous communication tool for Linux? Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2024 15:02:23 +0000 Lines: 33 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: netnews@gclare.org.uk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net PYJj8tET/0EcVI6OiH9k9AfqKJXbkwY20hbHNN6YM6xjQdfPWQ X-Orig-Path: ID-313840.user.individual.net!not-for-mail Cancel-Lock: sha1:J1RAKCIYaXY2m9anmxo5naPuLEs= sha256:5dNiJF2q/nStV+zwwokHnW5m0WNdoIxzC6MaELrj2VY= User-Agent: Pan/0.154 (Izium; 517acf4) Bytes: 2371 Richard Kettlewell wrote: > Geoff Clare writes: >> Muttley wrote: >> >>> talk is an age old unix util that allows people on the same machine to chat. >>> Even MacOS has it installed. >> >> "Even" MacOS? It's required for UNIX® conformance - if MacOS didn't >> have talk, it wouldn't be able to be certified as UNIX. > > I was surprised by that. Do you happen to know what motivated its > inclusion? The original decision to include talk goes back to POSIX.2-1992, where the rationale begins with this paragraph: The write utility was included in POSIX.2 since it can be implemented on all terminal types. The talk utility, which cannot be implemented on certain terminals, was considered to be a ‘‘better’’ communications interface. Both of these programs are in widespread use on historical implementations. Therefore, both utilities have been specified. > While this thread does show that there’s some demand for the > application, it seems a surprising thing to include in a OS specification. It's part of the "User Portability Utilities" option (which includes things like ex and vi), so it's optional for POSIX conformance but that option is mandated for UNIX conformance. -- Geoff Clare