> From: Andrew DeFaria
> Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 9:20 PM
> Hannu E K Nevalainen wrote:
>
> >>From: Andrew DeFaria
> >>Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 5:36 PM
> >>
> >OS wars begin(?) - Please, do not!
> >
> >>Non-protable to such "OSes" that don't have a more modern shell
> then Bourne/Ash I guess. Are there any "OSes" that don't support
> shells like csh, tcsh, ksh, bash?
> >>
SNIP
> >bash, and might I guess - most of those above, are/is littered
> with fork() calls IIUC (I have not looked).
> >
> >I'm not too sure if fork()-use is to be considered "state of the
> art" and thus make a containing project be considered "modern".
> Without really knowing I would have thought better of such
> projects if they'd used pthreads or some such instead. [ This
> statement is based on "basic OS theory" taught at university
> college in Sweden at least ]
> >
> >IMO your "modern shell" statement above is about the same as was
> stating "DOS compatible" a number of years ago. [BG: 640K ought
> to be enough...]
SNIP
> I'm not that concerned about Amiga OS.
I'm not surprised.
Did you even read what I've left unsnipped above, which was my main point.
The Amiga references was given as an _example_ of an OS where bash et al are
_HARD_ to port, others may well exists, this was the one *I* knew about.
> Honestly I don't know much about it. Is it even Unix like?
More so than D.O.S. (i.e. cmd/command) is. Given the contents of
geekgadgets the "unix-likeness" is or could be at the same level as cygwin
provides - in some areas better, others lesser. ('could be' as the
development has "stopped")
Well - whatever, this os OT. :-] lets stop it.
/Hannu E K Nevalainen, B.Sc. EE - 59?16.37'N, 17?12.60'E
-- printf("Timezone: %s\n", (DST)?"UTC+02":"UTC+01"); --
--END OF MESSAGE--
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
