Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!nih-csl!lhc!ncifcrf!haven!uflorida!rex!samsung!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!lavaca.uh.edu!menudo.uh.edu!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: POSIX AmigaOS (Re: AmigaOS/UNIX - A Suggestion) Message-ID: <6915@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 28 Oct 90 10:45:44 GMT References: <6874@sugar.hackercorp.com> <11640024@hpfcdc.HP.COM> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 33 In article <11640024@hpfcdc.HP.COM> koren@hpfcdc.HP.COM (Steve Koren) writes: > As for making AmigaDos POSIX compliant, which part of your post seems to > imply, this is not trivial. There is more to POSIX than the library calls > which could be defined in a shared library. That is simply POSIX.1. True, but it's the hardest part. Once it's done most of POSIX.2 would fall right out of comp.sources.unix and uunet. And a lot of it can be safely ignored if you don't have a UNIX kernel to feed. > It would be lots and lots > of work to get this stuff running, and it would introduce many other > problems like dramatically increasing the size of the AmigaDos distribution. But increasing it with *useful* stuff. Stuff that most of us are having to dig out of Fish disks and comp.sources.amiga. > It is not impossible, of course. But at the point when you have POSIX > compliance for .1, .2, and .2a, then you basically have the complexity > of a Un*x system and have to deal with it accordingly. What complexity? UNIX itself is pretty simple... much simpler than AmigaOS. If you don't carry the tons of warts that System V and BSD have accumulated over the years it's no problem at all. Having a bunch of UNIX programs isn't inherently any more complex than having a stack of Fish disks. > (Also, neither .2 or .2a is really stable yet.) Another reason to shoot for POSIX.1 first. Let's talk about that... The only really *hard* part of it is fork(). -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' .