I think the story of Stallman's influence over the committee is interesting.
The general template is, there's a bunch of people that discuss the ideas endlessly, but leaving certain key issues, or perhaps the main issue, undecided.
The strategic choice, if you care about the outcome, is to ensure you are present at the bitter end, when the committee is writing down its final recommendation, and then persuasively suggest the solution you favor.
The non-strategic choice is to join in the endless debate at the other end of the process. You will tire out, possibly get angry, and lose your position as the neutral arbiter which you will need at the end.
I had no idea RMS participated in POSIX to devalue AT&T Unix. It seemed like ten years later the commercial Unix vendors were trying to use POSIX and UNIX(R) pedantry against Linux.
He doesn't say he participated in designing POSIX in order to devalue AT&T Unix. He says he wanted to come up with a good name for the standard for UNIX-like systems so that people wouldn't just call the standard UNIX. In his view, that would have strengthened AT&T's position relative to other implementations because AT&T held the trademark on UNIX.
Why were they going to go with IEEEIX in the first place? Or rather, why the "IX" suffix? To my knowledge, the name UNIX was a play on the name Multics, and the IX in UNIX doesn't have any independent meaning.
Actually, both popular mobile operating systems have a POSIX-y system programming interface under the hood. Whether application developers can get at it is a different matter.
Upvote what you want. Personally, I would rather see a single page that shows where all the UNIX-related names came from. That way we'd have one single story and be done with it.
The general template is, there's a bunch of people that discuss the ideas endlessly, but leaving certain key issues, or perhaps the main issue, undecided.
The strategic choice, if you care about the outcome, is to ensure you are present at the bitter end, when the committee is writing down its final recommendation, and then persuasively suggest the solution you favor.
The non-strategic choice is to join in the endless debate at the other end of the process. You will tire out, possibly get angry, and lose your position as the neutral arbiter which you will need at the end.