Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!blars!blarson
From: blarson@blars
Newsgroups: comp.os.os9
Subject: Re: New Signetics 68070 machines
Message-ID: <119@blars>
Date: 3 Nov 90 07:47:18 GMT
References: <488@pdxgate.UUCP> <1990Nov2.233426.9040@cbnewsd.att.com>
Sender: news@usc
Lines: 30
Nntp-Posting-Host: dianne.usc.edu
Originator: blarson@dianne.usc.edu

In article <1990Nov2.233426.9040@cbnewsd.att.com> knudsen@cbnewsd.att.com (michael.j.knudsen) writes:
>Keep in mind that C applications written for OS9 can be ported to UN*X
>with almost ZERO extra work. 

As long as they are trivial little things that don't try to do any of
the many things os9 and unix do differntly, like setting terminal
modes, creating sub-processes, file locking, file naming conventions,
file naming restrictions, stating a file, renaming a file, hard links,
soft links, unlinks, option processing, file protection, etc.  I
agree.  I've got one such program I have written.  Anything that is
written in K&R 1 C that doesn't do I/O should have no problem being
ported. 

> The OS9 C Library is VERY UN*X compatible.

The os9 C library is a superset of a subset of what unix programs
expect.  Many of the functions can be written, but don't expect it to
be an easy job.  (I do plan on relaseing mine real soon now.) Others,
such as fork, cannot be impelmented in os9.  (Os9 has a combined
fork/exec call called os9exec(os9forkc, ...).  Getting the i/o paths
for the child straitend out is a pain, but usually doable.)


-- 
blarson@usc.edu
		C news and rn for os9/68k!
-- 
Bob Larson (blars)	blarson@usc.edu			usc!blarson
	Hiding differences does not make them go away.  Accepting
	differences makes them unimportant.