"Tobias DiPasquale" <anany / ece.vill.edu> wrote in message
news:3C03098C.6060407 / ece.vill.edu...
> MikkelFJ wrote:

> I just want to clear something up: the Windows method of creating

I'm not going into details but yes I know that Unix is not brain dead
implemented thanks to MMU's. As a concept I still don't think it is the most
elegant way to model a process  creation nor am I arguing that NT's way is
necessarily better depending on your priorities.
The real point was that one should realize the differences as exactly that:
differences, instead of arguing that the *nix way is better and therefore
Cygwin is the only way to go on Windows.

> out, Microsoft claim that Windows NT was POSIX-compliant? Which POSIX
> standard were they referring to? fork() is part of the POSIX.1 standard,
> so if NT is POSIX-compliant, shouldn't it implement that as well?

They did implement a posix subsystem so that they could get C2 certified for
use in US government installations. The implementation was a joke all along.
I wish they had bothered to create a decent POSIX interface. It wouldn't
have been difficult. Microsoft just don't care or they have a strategic
agenda. On the other hand Microsoft has done a lot for development
enviroments so I don't see this black and white and I have no intention to.
Several great ideas behind NT remained as nothing but great ideas once the
Windows 3.1 GUI and API entered the system. They could have had something
similar to or better than their current system several years back if they
had focused - but they would problaby have had a lesser market value on
Nasdaq. The rise of internet servers may give them some regrets in that area
though. But a good system is by itself no guarantee for success - briefly
mentioning NextStep.

MikkelFJ