Re: OS X & Rhapsody

Daniel Veillard (
Tue, 11 Aug 1998 19:49:27 -0400

> Oh, and I can't really let this pass. POSIX, yes, what a useful standard.
> Funny how when NT 3.1 came with a POSIX compliant subsystem, everyone
> bitched about what a useless subset of Unix functionality it provided.
> Sorry, guys, that's all the Unix guys could agree to.

Oh, and I can't really let this pass.

Do you call POSIX something where doing a select() on a network FD
doesn't work ??? The so-called POSIX compatibility is provided as far
as the function signature, but underneath it's a JOKE !
If you really want a good idea of what's lacking in the MS Posix
implementation, get cygwin32,

Just have a look to the mailing list archive to know what's lacking
and a look at the code and comments to get an idea of what Unix
programmers think of MS pseudo implementation ... Enjoy, the
source is available at least ...

BTW, on top of cygwin32, gdb, X-Windows, motif and xemacs do work !

Oh using the same terminology, Linux provides a full WIN32 compliant
subsystem, Wine (yes all the interfaces are defined >:-> ). Actually
Wine is probably now more WIN32 compliant than NT is POSIX compliant,
at least a few major applications now work (and without recompilation).

Just say no to crap ... use linux !

Daniel | W3C MIT/LCS NE43-344 | Today's Bookmarks :
Tel : +1 617 253 5884 | 545 Technology Square | Linux, WWW, rpm2html,
Fax : +1 617 258 5999 | Cambridge, MA 02139 USA | badminton, Kaffe, | HTTP-NG and Amaya.