You're referring to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#Linux ?

Objective answer: Arch has very few 'goals' or design principles and conforming to arbitrary standards just for the sake of it isn't one of them.

Subjective answer: Troll. ;]

Needless to say I am referring to that SUS (I am not aware of any other). I am not suggesting registering as compliant, I am
however suggesting making it SUS compliant by default. It would make it a much more attractive platform to use. It brings with
it the behaviour one expects of a unixy platform (ie. like ed being installed by default) and makes the whole distro very
much more attractive for serious useage, and to a wider variety of people and usecases.

Conforming to it just for the sake of it being there is not the idea, conforming to it because it makes the system behave
like users expect a system to behave *is* the idea.

Needless to say I am referring to that SUS (I am not aware of any other). I am not suggesting registering as compliant, I am
however suggesting making it SUS compliant by default. It would make it a much more attractive platform to use. It brings with
it the behaviour one expects of a unixy platform (ie. like ed being installed by default) and makes the whole distro very
much more attractive for serious useage, and to a wider variety of people and usecases.

Conforming to it just for the sake of it being there is not the idea, conforming to it because it makes the system behave
like users expect a system to behave *is* the idea.

"The Arch Linux system places precedence upon elegance of design as well as clean, simple code, rather than unnecessary patching, automation, eye candy or "newbie-friendliness"."

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way

Why don't you make a list of what needs to be done to conform to this standard. You do not provide a single example to say that we do not conform (although I highly doubt we do...). There will be no motivation to look at this unless a detailed TODO list is given

6hxbghwy: I am, of course, not talking about eye candy, automation, unnecessary patching or "newbie-friendlyness". I am talking about the SUS.
It is more about unix-friendlyness than anything else, though I must admit that `ed' is quite pretty to look at.

Allan McRae: In fact I do mention one example (ed not being installed in default system). There are also other utilities like these that are
missing in the default install (patch etc.). More precisely this http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908775/xcuix.html needs to be installed
by default. What first surprised me about Arch was how a lot of scripts I have around failed - due to ed not being installed by default. It is
not a sane way to go.

But Arch doesnt install anything by default, not even the linux kernel. You can CHOOSE to install both patch and ed during installation.

Greg: linux kernel I can live without no problem. But yes, you're quite right. The fact that nothing is installed by default is the problem, and my
suggested remedy to make Arch a better system is to make it SUS compliant.

Arch is _never_ going to make anybody install anything by default.