3 ms·
Some versions of Windows have been POSIX compliant, even without WSL, so you can't entirely rely on that. It's a very basic spec.
by simonh 4y ago
Some versions of Windows have been POSIX compliant, even without WSL, so you can't entirely rely on that. It's a very basic spec.
- yakak 4y agoSure, I specifically use these POSIX orientated emulation layers for the process of porting "UNIX" apps. I would consider windows an acceptable replacement for UNIX as long as one isn't working with people who use its native interfaces by default.
- boondaburrah 4y agoYes, but without WSL you had to install SUA (Subsystem for Unix Applications) which gave you a shell and all the Unix things you like, so it's really not different (even if the POSIX it gave you was really old and crusty). I actually liked SUA more than WSL, which I like more than WSL2, since it seems like they keep moving farther and farther away from making Windows actually POSIX compliant and instead just offering a container for your pesky POSIX needs.