Unixporn

15390 readers

5 users here now

Unixporn

Submit screenshots of all your *NIX desktops, themes, and nifty configurations, or submit anything else that will make themers happy. Maybe a server running on an Amiga, or a Thinkpad signed by Bjarne Stroustrup? Show the world how pretty your computer can be!

Rules

Post On-Topic
No Defaults
Busy Screenshots
Use High-Quality Images
Include a Details Comment
No NSFW
No Racism or use of racist terms

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

443

Im going to get banned for this (programming.dev)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

121 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem

Since 1993.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thanks, this explains:

The Windows NT POSIX subsystem did not provide the interactive user environment parts

So the interactive part, the shell itself, is not compliant. That is why I was confused

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I am not a greybeard expert with deep bash history, but I though the posix compliant aspect of PowerShell was a very recent, though apparently not perfect, achievement even if "technically" NT was POSIX compliant by some specific definition in 1993.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

As far as I understand, these are posix requirements https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18

Powershell is not compliant with that document even now in the interactive part. Wsl2 is, as one can istall a standard Linux shell

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

bruh

That was Windows NT and was done for C builds so that Microsoft could compete for US government contracts