fish, the friendly interactive shell, is a commandline shell intended to be interactive and user-friendly.
fish is intentionally not fully POSIX compliant, it aims at addressing POSIX inconsistencies (as perceived by the creators) with a simplified or a different syntax. This means that even simple POSIX compliant scripts may require some significant adaptation or even full rewriting to run with fish.
Non English speaker here . don’t you mean “non POSIX compliant” instead of “POSIX non compliant” ?or is it a hint at the fact that it is designed to actually be non compliant?
“non-POSIX compliant” = compliant with non-POSIX (whatever “non-POSIX” may be)
“POSIX non-compliant” = not compliant with POSIX
The best way to say what OP did would be a simple “not POSIX compliant”. Looking back, that’s exactly what was said in the post. The meme itself is, unfortunately a different story.
Posix non-compliant was used in the meme because the author wanted to save on words in the puchline. “Using a shell not POSIX compliant” lacks a few words and is syntactically incorrect. “Using a POSIX non-compliant shell” saves on words, and is syntactically correct, but makes the sentence more complex.
All in all, the “non-” prefix is a bit finicky in english and can usually be avoided.
Wouldn’t it be more like “non POSIX-compliant”? That’s how I would understand it, though I’m not a native speaker
This is the way I see it too. Treat “POSIX-compliant” as an adjective and negate it.
Honestly, I didn’t see it that way. With the dash, I do. That works as well. It’s just that, if I put a dash somewhere myself, it’s the other way around.
Generally, people mix the two, so you have to use context. I think, however, your take is correct. I think the post is meant to give a bit of a rebellious vibe, so that may be why they chose this phrasing.