>> Yeah, but aren't they all just implementations of the POSIX standard 
>> which basically defines exactly how everything has to work anyway?
> 
>   Posix defines some minimum requirements, it doesn't say what else the
> OS may also implement.
> 
>   Also, I don't think the posix standard says much about how the kernel
> should internally be implemented (only about some of its interfaces).

Mmm, OK.

>   Yes, I know you don't read current events on almost anything.

What, you're not impressed that I have actually *heard* of Solaris? :-P

> Solaris
> has worked on Intel hardware for quite some time, and Sun made it open
> source also some time ago.

Any idea what the motivation behind this is? It seems to be quite 
fashionable for people to suddenly release the sources for large 
commercial applications these days, and I'm never really sure what it is 
they're hoping to gain...

>   The computing world consists of more than just desktop PCs. Those
> mythical big servers out there somewhere don't run by themselves, and
> they don't all have fancy graphical user interfaces (many of them don't
> have a graphics card at all).

Well, my servers have a "fancy" graphical web browser installed. 
However, since that browser is *cough* Internet Explorer, I never run 
it. What I do is go to the PC at my desk, use Firefox to download what I 
want, and then send it to the server from my desk.

Anyway, I would think that you wouldn't need a server to physically have 
graphics hardware to access it remotely and get a graphical display of 
some kind...

>   Of course there are also a few purist unix gurus out there in their
> caves who think that late 70's is the only real computer era and that
> current computers are just toys for kids.

Yeah - but I doubt my blog attracts any of those.

[OTOH, I do sometimes mention Haskell...]

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message