3 ms·

Looking 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 runn

Looking 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 ago
  POSIX 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.