3 ms·
Yeah, that may be true, but on the other hand, had they made it useable, portabilith with other Unix would have been a simpler option. Simpler than Win32 + Uni
by jacobush 7y ago
Yeah, that may be true, but on the other hand, had they made it useable, portabilith with other Unix would have been a simpler option.
Simpler than Win32 + Unix portability in any case. Or in some cases, software would have been ported to Win32 at all.
- DeathArrow 7y ago>Yeah, that may be true, but on the other hand, had they made it useable, portabilith with other Unix would have been a simpler option. That's not necessarily the case. See macOS which is using different GUI libraries, Metal instead of Vulkan etc. So you can't recompile macOS apps to use them on Linux.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- pjmlp 7y agoWhat UNIX portability? Back when I was in the university, and Linux kernel was still at 1.0, I had the pleasure to write C and C++ code across Xenix, DG/UX, Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, BSD and naturally Linux also. There is POSIX, there is what each OS actually do for the implementation defined behaviours, then the whole set of APIs that made each UNIX variant unique and were the selling point of the UNIX clone to start with. Autoconf and friends did not start out of masochism.