7 ms·

Windows NT 3.x and 4 were Posix complaint. In the mid-1990's there were a few vendors that sold products that let you run full X11 apps on NT. Microsoft bought

Windows NT 3.x and 4 were Posix complaint. In the mid-1990's there were a few vendors that sold products that let you run full X11 apps on NT. Microsoft bought and extinguished the largest one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interix https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interix

a-dub 3y ago
this. it was pretty straightforward to port to NT modulo a few quirks around shared memory, mmap and fork/exec. edit. oh yeah, line endings. that sucked. that said, nt had way better multithreading support.
pjmlp 3y ago
During university days, had NT really properly supported POSIX, I probably would never bothered with that "Linux Unleashed with Slackware 2.0 CD-ROM" book. If Microsoft could tell the future, they would have improved POSIX, instead of killing it, and then briging a Linux VM into the OS.
- vkazanov 3y ago
  Microsoft did everything, like everything and more, to kill every alternative platform on the planet. Hedging their bets with half-hearted posix support was part of that effort. If not for that MSN vs Internet fiasco, they would succeed.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    I never liked that point of view, because while it is true they did their part, the OEMs and consumers also did theirs. Also as seen nowadays by many FAANG efforts, "do no evil" marketing stunts, Playstation and Nintendo with their exclusive deals, they are not alone in the desire to achieve that goal. Ironically, while UNIX won the server room, the Linux wars replacing the UNIX wars, is kind of what killed the desktop for most consumers, now enjoying the Linux kernel via Android, ChromeOS, and the free beer version of them, versus what OEMs make available isn't the same anyway. Or one pays what is seen as the Apple tax in countries where wages aren't at the same level as North America.
    - vkazanov 3y ago
      Well, the problem with world domination plans (Microsoft included), is that every actor has one, and they don't necessarily, ehm, align. So the non-desktop part was lost by Microsoft, and this resulted in the world we have now, Linux derivatives and all. But for a while, sometime around 1996-2006, it definitely felt like they almost had it. This is when I began my official dev career and that summer I could barely find a non-MS stack shop. And yes, the OSS movement didn't manage to unify the desktop. And Microsoft has nothing to do with it. I still like the landscape much better.
  - simonh 3y ago
    Many US government contracts required any operating systems purchased to be POSIX compliant, so MS had to be able to tick that box.
  - coldacid 3y ago
    Nah, in those days everyone was either offering POSIX.1 support or even providing their own custom Unix distribution for their machines, because it was the only way to get US government contracts. This is why things like Amix, Atari UNIX, and A/UX existed at all, and why NT had to have an out-of-box POSIX subsystem.
sydbarrett74 3y ago
I guess WSL/WSL2 is Microsoft's mea culpa. :D
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Definitely.
- rollcat 3y ago
  Notice how Windows, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and (removed in 6.0) OpenBSD all have Linux emulation/compat layers. This is in fact incredibly sad, for multiple reasons: - This is what POSIX was meant to address; there aren't all that many Linux-specific APIs that ordinary applications actually need. Proof: browse the ports/packages on any BSD; all the apps (with extremely few notable omissions) are there and working fine. - Vocal FOSS enthusiasts are ready, every day of the week, to preach to you about open standards; you must use Jitsi and not Zoom, Matrix and not WhatsApp, heck I've been told to play Mindustry instead of Factorio. I don't know if these are the same people who write "#ifdef linux" in their code, but I've sent out enough one-line patches to fix the build on OpenBSD to wonder. - The Linux userland is one hell of a horror, in terms of being a viable target for others to aim at; try running literally any precompiled binary on Alpine or Void(musl) to get a feel. The glibc seems to be introducing new versioned symbols and other backward incompatible changes every release - just for the sake of it; and many open source libraries resist static linking with every inch of their autohell existence. (I've tried making a static build of Love2d for Linux, and it was an exercise in futility.) Yeah guys, unless you're writing a container runtime, please stop targeting Linux. You don't need to strictly adhere to POSIX, just please at least try to compile your program in a VM with any BSD; it will flush out 99% of the non-portable stuff.
  - zlg_codes 3y ago
    This is relevant to my interests. What roadblocks did you run into when you attempted to build statically? I assume your goal was to have a single binary of Love2D so you can swap it around and not worry about glibc version? (As God intended imo; not religious but games should be one contained thing imo) Am curious to see what it does to avoid a static build.
speps 3y ago
Just playing devil's advocate here but Interix according to the Wikipedia was supported by Microsoft until Windows 7 (1999 to 2010). I wouldn't call that "bought and extinguished".
- taspeotis 3y ago
  > supported by Microsoft until Windows 7 (1999 to 2010) The 2022 Extended Security Updates for Windows 7 were maintained until 2023: > Windows 7 Extended Security Updates 2022: January 12, 2022 - January 10, 2023 [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-client/windows-7-eos-faq/windows-7-extended-security-updates-faq#what-are-the-coverage-dates-for-the-three-windows-7-esu-skus- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-clien...
  - dtech 3y ago
    If something was bought in 1999, and updated and released for more than a decade, "bought and extinguished" is incredibly misleading.
    - taspeotis 3y ago
      No argument there? I am pointing out Windows 7 got an extra 13 years of support after 2010.
- RachelF 3y ago
  True, I was being glib, but the devil's in the details here - unfortunately, it was very hard to use after Microsoft bought it. It became unreliable, and the licensing was hard to understand for customers who wanted to use it.
isnifailed 3y ago
[dead]

a-dub 3y ago

this. it was pretty straightforward to port to NT modulo a few quirks around shared memory, mmap and fork/exec. edit. oh yeah, line endings. that sucked. that said, nt had way better multithreading support.

pjmlp 3y ago

During university days, had NT really properly supported POSIX, I probably would never bothered with that "Linux Unleashed with Slackware 2.0 CD-ROM" book. If Microsoft could tell the future, they would have improved POSIX, instead of killing it, and then briging a Linux VM into the OS.

vkazanov 3y ago
Microsoft did everything, like everything and more, to kill every alternative platform on the planet. Hedging their bets with half-hearted posix support was part of that effort. If not for that MSN vs Internet fiasco, they would succeed.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  I never liked that point of view, because while it is true they did their part, the OEMs and consumers also did theirs. Also as seen nowadays by many FAANG efforts, "do no evil" marketing stunts, Playstation and Nintendo with their exclusive deals, they are not alone in the desire to achieve that goal. Ironically, while UNIX won the server room, the Linux wars replacing the UNIX wars, is kind of what killed the desktop for most consumers, now enjoying the Linux kernel via Android, ChromeOS, and the free beer version of them, versus what OEMs make available isn't the same anyway. Or one pays what is seen as the Apple tax in countries where wages aren't at the same level as North America.
  - vkazanov 3y ago
    Well, the problem with world domination plans (Microsoft included), is that every actor has one, and they don't necessarily, ehm, align. So the non-desktop part was lost by Microsoft, and this resulted in the world we have now, Linux derivatives and all. But for a while, sometime around 1996-2006, it definitely felt like they almost had it. This is when I began my official dev career and that summer I could barely find a non-MS stack shop. And yes, the OSS movement didn't manage to unify the desktop. And Microsoft has nothing to do with it. I still like the landscape much better.
- simonh 3y ago
  Many US government contracts required any operating systems purchased to be POSIX compliant, so MS had to be able to tick that box.
- coldacid 3y ago
  Nah, in those days everyone was either offering POSIX.1 support or even providing their own custom Unix distribution for their machines, because it was the only way to get US government contracts. This is why things like Amix, Atari UNIX, and A/UX existed at all, and why NT had to have an out-of-box POSIX subsystem.

sydbarrett74 3y ago

I guess WSL/WSL2 is Microsoft's mea culpa. :D

pjmlp 3y ago
Definitely.
rollcat 3y ago
Notice how Windows, FreeBSD, NetBSD, and (removed in 6.0) OpenBSD all have Linux emulation/compat layers. This is in fact incredibly sad, for multiple reasons: - This is what POSIX was meant to address; there aren't all that many Linux-specific APIs that ordinary applications actually need. Proof: browse the ports/packages on any BSD; all the apps (with extremely few notable omissions) are there and working fine. - Vocal FOSS enthusiasts are ready, every day of the week, to preach to you about open standards; you must use Jitsi and not Zoom, Matrix and not WhatsApp, heck I've been told to play Mindustry instead of Factorio. I don't know if these are the same people who write "#ifdef linux" in their code, but I've sent out enough one-line patches to fix the build on OpenBSD to wonder. - The Linux userland is one hell of a horror, in terms of being a viable target for others to aim at; try running literally any precompiled binary on Alpine or Void(musl) to get a feel. The glibc seems to be introducing new versioned symbols and other backward incompatible changes every release - just for the sake of it; and many open source libraries resist static linking with every inch of their autohell existence. (I've tried making a static build of Love2d for Linux, and it was an exercise in futility.) Yeah guys, unless you're writing a container runtime, please stop targeting Linux. You don't need to strictly adhere to POSIX, just please at least try to compile your program in a VM with any BSD; it will flush out 99% of the non-portable stuff.
- zlg_codes 3y ago
  This is relevant to my interests. What roadblocks did you run into when you attempted to build statically? I assume your goal was to have a single binary of Love2D so you can swap it around and not worry about glibc version? (As God intended imo; not religious but games should be one contained thing imo) Am curious to see what it does to avoid a static build.

speps 3y ago

Just playing devil's advocate here but Interix according to the Wikipedia was supported by Microsoft until Windows 7 (1999 to 2010). I wouldn't call that "bought and extinguished".

taspeotis 3y ago
> supported by Microsoft until Windows 7 (1999 to 2010) The 2022 Extended Security Updates for Windows 7 were maintained until 2023: > Windows 7 Extended Security Updates 2022: January 12, 2022 - January 10, 2023 [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-client/windows-7-eos-faq/windows-7-extended-security-updates-faq#what-are-the-coverage-dates-for-the-three-windows-7-esu-skus- https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-clien...
- dtech 3y ago
  If something was bought in 1999, and updated and released for more than a decade, "bought and extinguished" is incredibly misleading.
  - taspeotis 3y ago
    No argument there? I am pointing out Windows 7 got an extra 13 years of support after 2010.
RachelF 3y ago
True, I was being glib, but the devil's in the details here - unfortunately, it was very hard to use after Microsoft bought it. It became unreliable, and the licensing was hard to understand for customers who wanted to use it.

isnifailed 3y ago

[dead]