I think your reading more into my comment than is there.

If you're trying to write a portable app between all of those platforms, would you choose POSIX or would you instead pick a framework or language that has a better high level abstraction?

Again, you're confusing popularity with being technically antiquated or obsolete.

The thesis presented in the article is that POSIX is outdated. The popularity of a platform, particularly one which was forced upon the world through a de-facto monopoly, is entirely irrelevant in any argument on the technical merits of a technical standard, particularly when some of those platforms were designed with the express purpose of locking out virtually all standardized programming languages.

Hm. The point of POSIX is to support cross platform development with a single standard. If you find that it is not keeping pace with the most modern and popular platforms, is it not outdated?

Technically speaking I think the standard is great, especially around having consistent definitions for thing like close(). But there are better options on all platforms to the select() and poll() interfaces.

In terms of my desires for open platforms that support open standards, I'm completely with you. If anything what we should be debating is how to update the POSIX standard such that it is worthwhile to target during development.

I don't see how it's helpful to ignore what is popular out in the world.

> Hm. The point of POSIX is to support cross platform development with a single standard.

No, the point of POSIX is to specify a set of interfaces that software vendors should provide and target if their goal is to provide an UNIX variant or develop UNIX-compliant software.

The key issue is that the main requirement is willingness on behalf of the software vendors to comply with the standard, and offer/target the standardized interface.

If a software company is blatantly hostile regarding interoperability, and bases their business model on vendor lock-in strategies then it's quite obvious that those companies are particularly are not willing to play ball with others regarding interoperability.

Yet, somehow you're presenting those companies, and the consequences of the actions taken by companies that are openly hostile regarding interoperability, as some sort of proof that a specific interoperability target suffers from technical problems.