Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/10/17/13:24:57
> From: Andrew DeFaria
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 5:36 PM
OS wars begin(?) - Please, do not!
> Non-protable to such "OSes" that don't have a more modern shell then
> Bourne/Ash I guess. Are there any "OSes" that don't support shells like
> csh, tcsh, ksh, bash?
Old info; AmigaOS had(has) very little support for fork() as all of the OS
ran(runs) in the same memory space (under special circumstanses there was a
vfork() though; see geekgadgets below. In addition to the "lightweight
threads" that were/are standard).
bash, and might I guess - most of those above, are/is littered with fork()
calls IIUC (I have not looked).
I'm not too sure if fork()-use is to be considered "state of the art" and
thus make a containing project be considered "modern".
Without really knowing I would have thought better of such projects if
they'd used pthreads or some such instead. [ This statement is based on
"basic OS theory" taught at university college in Sweden at least ]
IMO your "modern shell" statement above is about the same as was stating
"DOS compatible" a number of years ago. [BG: 640K ought to be enough...]
About AmigaOS:
There was(is) a pdksh available though. It was(is) included in the
"geekgadgets" unix emulation project.
Yes, geekgadgets was the same for AmigaOS as cygwin currently is for
Windows.
I believe "Fred Fish" is well known to former cygnus.com and gdb people? He
was the initiatior(?) of geekgadgets, at least he held his hand on it for a
long time.
Actually this project still exists, but has a very "low profile" as most of
its users and maintainers are gone.
/Hannu E K Nevalainen, B.Sc. EE - Amiga user since '85 (the beginning)
-- printf("Timezone: %s\n", (DST)?"UTC+02":"UTC+01"); --
--END OF MESSAGE--
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -