Warp wrote:
>   Posix defines some minimum requirements, it doesn't say what else the
> OS may also implement.

And didn't MS manage to get NT certified as POSIX-compliant at some 
point?  I thought POSIX was along the lines of "here's the UNIX system 
stuff you have to support", and assumed it was talking about UNIX, and 
didn't really rule out (say) having completely non-standard semantics 
for files and such as long as you had conforming names. :-)

>   Yes, I know you don't read current events on almost anything. Solaris
> has worked on Intel hardware for quite some time, 

Like ten years ago. I tried Solaris x68 about a year after it came out, 
and went back to Windows when I found out it *didn't support Java.* WTF?

(At the time, I needed Java for my job, so out it went.)

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message