From:	murray AT lamar DOT colostate DOT edu (Murray Todd Williams)
Subject:	No decent POSIX (was TeX implementations?)
30 Oct 1996 18:46:16 -0800 :
Sender:	daemon AT cygnus DOT com
Approved:	cygnus DOT gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Distribution:	cygnus
Message-ID:	<327781BC.4E1359EA.cygnus.gnu-win32@lamar.colostate.edu>
References:	<199610290633 DOT PAA15705 AT bird DOT fu DOT is DOT saga-u DOT ac DOT jp> <9610291053 DOT ZM27457 AT morgan DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.0 i586)
Original-To:	Graham <ggill AT morgan DOT com>
Original-Cc:	gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com
Original-Sender:	owner-gnu-win32 AT cygnus DOT com

To quote the Microsoft Resource Kit:

With this release of Windows NT, POSIX applications have no direct
access to any of the facilities and features of the Win32 subsystem,
such as memory mapped files, networking, graphics, or dynamic data
exchange.

To quote an informative web page at http://nentug.org/unix-to-nt/ The
general consensus is that Microsoft put in the POSIX subsystem in order
to bit NT on U.S. government contracts where POSIX can be a requirement.

No, folks.  No help from Microsoft in these endevours.  We're on our
own.

Murray Todd Williams


Graham wrote:
> 
> Colin Peters <colin AT fu DOT is DOT saga-u DOT ac DOT jp> wrote...
> 
> > Making NT look like UNIX is a tough job.
> 
> I'm sorry if this is a dumb or naive question, but isn't there a difference
> between making NT look like Unix by talking to the win32 API and making NT look
> like Unix by talking to the POSIX API.
> 
> I apologize if I've been mislead about the NT kernal by MicroSoft Propaganda,
> but if this POSIX API works right shouldn't it be relatively easy to talk to
> it.
> I understood that one of the points of NT was the multiple API structures...
> 
> GG
> 
> --
> Graham Giller
-
For help on using this list, send a message to
"gnu-win32-request AT cygnus DOT com" with one line of text: "help".

- Raw text -