31 ms·

I remember talking to some MS dude (from the NT group) at a conference, I think in 1993, where I said something to the effect I was waiting for them to add sock

I remember talking to some MS dude (from the NT group) at a conference, I think in 1993, where I said something to the effect I was waiting for them to add sockets support to the posix subsystem. He response was almost to laugh in my face. Nice to be proven correct 30 years later.

pjmlp 3y ago
Yes, large scale adoption of OS X has proven that the large majority cares more about POSIX/UNIX in general, than GNU/Linux in particular. WSL ended up being an easier way, than fixing SUA.
sillywalk 3y ago
I thought they added Posix support because certain government contracts required it.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Indeed, hence only the minimum as required by DoD. Eventually there was an evolution with SUA, but never with a big commitment level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem
  - sillywalk 3y ago
    "Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can." -JWZ It seems like Every* operating system adds some sort of Posix compatibility.. Some of IBM Mainframe OS's, AS/400 via PASE; HP's MPE->MPE/IX, VMS->OpenVMS, Stratus VOS, Tandem(HPE) Guardian OSS, and any number of clones/embedded systems, etc. *I don't mean that literally.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Mostly because C and UNIX symbiosis, and ANSI C being too little. So POSIX ends up being the rest that everyone reaches out for when using C. The irony being that still isn't enough to get rid of #ifdef spaghetti, due to the things POSIX leaves out to each implementation.