home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!olivea!hal.com!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!osr
- From: alvin@eyepoint.com (Alvin Starr)
- Newsgroups: comp.os.research
- Subject: Re: WINDOWS/NT
- Message-ID: <1952otINN29s@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
- Date: 15 Sep 92 16:25:01 GMT
- References: <18iq26INNe58@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <18lnnmINN78b@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>
- Organization: eyepoint
- Lines: 25
- Approved: comp-os-research@ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
- NNTP-Posting-Host: ftp.cse.ucsc.edu
- Originator: osr@ftp
-
- gthaker@fergie.dnet.ge.com (Gautam H. Thaker) writes:
-
- >BTW, what is the view of the POSIX standard(s) in the comp.os.research
- >community? If these standards are real and sufficient, and if
- >NT is POSIX compliant and UNIX is POSIX compliant isn't the point
- >sort of moot?
-
- Posix is not yet complete enough to be called an OS specification. Hell
- it is possible to wham a Posix interface onto DOS, does that mean that you
- can then use that interface to create an Xwindow based transaction processing
- package? The point is will NT conform to the intent of Posix(part of an
- ongoing OS definition) or the letter of the spec(just a batch of procedure
- calls in C and screw the other other functions)
-
- And as for Posix's accptance in the real world just try to sell a Posix
- compatable OS. You may be in for a real let down. Most end users do not
- even know what POSIX means and what that translates into for the manufacurers
- is that "If Posix will not increse my sales today then I don't care about it".
-
- I do not mean to be a cynic but we have been trying to push a hosted POSIX
- OS for over a year now and have had a response that has been amazingly cool.
- --
- Alvin Starr || voice: (416)513-6717
- Eyepoint Inc. || fax: (416)513-6718
- alvin@eyepoint.com ||
-