🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <11640024@hpfcdc.HP.COM> koren@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Steve Koren) writes:
> As for making AmigaDos POSIX compliant, which part of your post seems to
> imply, this is not trivial.  There is more to POSIX than the library calls
> which could be defined in a shared library.  That is simply POSIX.1.

True, but it's the hardest part. Once it's done most of POSIX.2 would fall
right out of comp.sources.unix and uunet. And a lot of it can be safely
ignored if you don't have a UNIX kernel to feed.

> It would be lots and lots
> of work to get this stuff running, and it would introduce many other
> problems like dramatically increasing the size of the AmigaDos distribution.

But increasing it with *useful* stuff. Stuff that most of us are having to
dig out of Fish disks and comp.sources.amiga.

> It is not impossible, of course.  But at the point when you have POSIX
> compliance for .1, .2, and .2a, then you basically have the complexity
> of a Un*x system and have to deal with it accordingly.

What complexity? UNIX itself is pretty simple... much simpler than AmigaOS.
If you don't carry the tons of warts that System V and BSD have accumulated
over the years it's no problem at all. Having a bunch of UNIX programs isn't
inherently any more complex than having a stack of Fish disks.

> (Also, neither .2 or .2a is really stable yet.)

Another reason to shoot for POSIX.1 first. Let's talk about that...

The only really *hard* part of it is fork().
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
<peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>.