4 ms·
Yes. It did. It's just another subsystem over the kernel. Kernel did not care about POSIX. The POSIX subsystem is yet another abstraction layer, not too differe
by feldrim 5y ago
Yes. It did. It's just another subsystem over the kernel. Kernel did not care about POSIX. The POSIX subsystem is yet another abstraction layer, not too different from CygWin on MinGW for the use case. Since it was limited, it would not solve the portability problem that the author mentioned.
- hyperman1 5y agoIt also means mixing windows and posix code was impossible. If you chose posix, you were locked in an extremely limited text-only world with no good path to any extras windows could offer. This architecture made it possible to claim posix compatibility on paper, while making it clear microsoft would make your life hell if you tried to actually use it
- pjmlp 5y agoExcept you're missing the part that it was later replaced with SFU. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX However most people didn't care enough to use them. Having WSL now in the box to do what many of us have been doing with VMware, is more an attack on Apple to cater to those that do not pay Linux OEMs to develop for Linux than anything else out of their good hearts.