Re: Okay so you do not compile perl :(

Karl J. Runge (runge@redhook.llnl.gov)
Thu, 24 Apr 97 10:00:58 PDT


On Thu, 24 Apr 1997, C Matthew Curtin <cmcurtin@research.megasoft.com> wrote:
> >>>>> "Karl" == Karl J Runge <runge@redhook.llnl.gov> writes:
>
> Karl> NT does not have the equivalent of the Unix fork() command. This
> Karl> is a shame because fork() is a very useful syscall. I guess the
> Karl> NT designers figured people would always use sexier threads? Oh
> Karl> well...
>
> NT sucks rocks.

Agreed. ;-)

> Isn't it supposed to be POSIX compliant? Or is NT's POSIX "support"
> just as broken and useless as it was in 1993?

I believe NT is only POSIX.0 compliant. E.g. you can't even talk to the
filesystem. Linux, mostly thru volunteers donating time and money, got its
POSIX.1 rating last year.

To me this speaks volumes that Microsoft is doing minimal possible wrt
POSIX compliancy. I actually wish they hadn't bothered with it at all,
but I guess they saw some marketing edge in it.

Sorry for the diversion, now back to crunching the keyspace!

Karl