Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Injected-Via-Gmane:	http://gmane.org/
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From:	Andrew DeFaria <ADeFaria AT Salira DOT com>
Subject:	Re: ash does not understand '~'
Date:	Fri, 17 Oct 2003 12:20:01 -0700
Lines:	37
Message-ID:	<bmpf7i$el2$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:	<bmp28u$8i4$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <NGBBLLIAMFLGJEOAJCCEMEHIDFAA DOT garbage_collector AT telia DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Complaints-To:	usenet AT sea DOT gmane DOT org
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en
In-Reply-To:	<NGBBLLIAMFLGJEOAJCCEMEHIDFAA.garbage_collector@telia.com>

Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:

>>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--
>
I'm not that concerned about Amiga OS. Honestly I don't know much about 
it. Is it even Unix like?
-- 
A flashlight is a case for holding dead batteries.



--
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 -