3 ms·
Colin I think you're being a little pedantic. You can use context to infer what they mean. This is their application list: https://github.com/columbia/libtrac
by kajecounterhack 10y ago
Colin I think you're being a little pedantic. You can use context to infer what they mean.
This is their application list:
https://github.com/columbia/libtrack/blob/master/workloads/osx.md https://github.com/columbia/libtrack/blob/master/workloads/o...
- cperciva 10y agoLooking at that list, I'm struck by the fact that it includes most of the applications users know they're using, but only a small minority of the processes running on an OS X system.
- pjmlp 10y ago> only a small minority of the processes running on an OS X system. Which are anyway not POSIX. https://www.amazon.de/MAC-OS-Internals-Amit-Singh/dp/0321278542 https://www.amazon.de/MAC-OS-Internals-Amit-Singh/dp/0321278...
- netheril96 10y agoPOSIX is an application interface. How OS X is implemented under the hood is irrelevant. It does present an application interface mostly conformant to POSIX standards, so it is some way POSIX.
- coldtea 10y ago>so it is some way POSIX. That's hardly encouraging, when all the basics and all the newer OS X abstractions are based things other than POSIX standards, and ask programmers to connect to them with non-POSIX interfaces. The fact that it also supports a POSIX layer is about as relevant to what we're discussing (whether POSIX is fit for today's needs and used in today's mainstream development) as the presence of some X Windows translation layer is in Wayland.