From: murray@lamar.colostate.edu (Murray Todd Williams) Subject: No decent POSIX (was TeX implementations?) 30 Oct 1996 18:46:16 -0800 Sender: daemon@cygnus.com Approved: cygnus.gnu-win32@cygnus.com Distribution: cygnus Message-ID: <327781BC.4E1359EA.cygnus.gnu-win32@lamar.colostate.edu> References: <199610290633.PAA15705@bird.fu.is.saga-u.ac.jp> <9610291053.ZM27457@morgan.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (X11; I; Linux 2.0.0 i586) Original-To: Graham Original-Cc: gnu-win32@cygnus.com Original-Sender: owner-gnu-win32@cygnus.com To quote the Microsoft Resource Kit: With this release of Windows NT, POSIX applications have no direct access to any of the facilities and features of the Win32 subsystem, such as memory mapped files, networking, graphics, or dynamic data exchange. To quote an informative web page at http://nentug.org/unix-to-nt/ The general consensus is that Microsoft put in the POSIX subsystem in order to bit NT on U.S. government contracts where POSIX can be a requirement. No, folks. No help from Microsoft in these endevours. We're on our own. Murray Todd Williams Graham wrote: > > Colin Peters wrote... > > > Making NT look like UNIX is a tough job. > > I'm sorry if this is a dumb or naive question, but isn't there a difference > between making NT look like Unix by talking to the win32 API and making NT look > like Unix by talking to the POSIX API. > > I apologize if I've been mislead about the NT kernal by MicroSoft Propaganda, > but if this POSIX API works right shouldn't it be relatively easy to talk to > it. > I understood that one of the points of NT was the multiple API structures... > > GG > > -- > Graham Giller - For help on using this list, send a message to "gnu-win32-request@cygnus.com" with one line of text: "help".