Re: I would use hurd.

Article View: gnu.misc.discuss

Article #62899

#62899

From: muzaffer
Date: Fri, 07 Apr 1995 00:00

20 lines
1355 bytes

In article <MIB.95Apr7175138@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, 
<mib@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> writes:
> But beyond that, you are dishonest.  Windows NT is not Mach, and its
> Posix support is broken.  It isn't Unixy at all; Unix is much more
> than Posix.

just to nitpick: NT's POSIX support is not broken. NT implements  1003.1
fully. You can claim that POSIX 1003.1  is broken and I can go with that.
And what you say next makes more sense (*nix is much more than POSIX) to
a certain degree. Actually *nix is not much more than the collection of all
POSIX standards but it is definitely more than 1003.1. So that is your
main problem. 1003.1 doesn't have networking, threads, shell, windowing
etc, etc. 1003.1 is by itself is not enough. But this is not NT's problem.

Muzaffer

standard disclaimer

BTW I agree on your conclusion about Art.

Technical Details

Message-ID: <NEWTNews.15176.797303472.muzaffer@omer1.smixedsignal.com>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mail

References: <MIB.95Apr7175138@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,27e0a295ed4288ab
X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public
From: muzaffer@smixedsignal.com
Subject: Re: I would use hurd.
Date: 1995/04/07
Message-ID: <NEWTNews.15176.797303472.muzaffer@omer1.smixedsignal.com>
X-Deja-AN: 100092092
references: <MIB.95Apr7175138@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
organization: InterNex Information Services, Inc.
mime-version: 1.0
newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss

Reply to Parent Message