Windows 2000 support

[Paulo Pinto]

On Tuesday, 5 June 2012 at 15:48:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Tuesday, June 05, 2012 19:34:38 Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
>> > If it was not for the damned Windows, there would be a single
>> > universal operating system interface for all operating 
>> > systems.
>> 
>> If POSIX standardization was ever successful. If all you need 
>> is covered
>> by oldish Unix interface, if ... And there is ton of small 
>> details that
>> try to stub you in the eye while porting from say Linux to OS 
>> X.
>
> When writing std.datetime, I was shocked to find out that Mac 
> OS X doesn't have
> the librt functions in spite of the fact that they're POSIX. My 
> guess is that
> they're from some version of POSIX that Mac OS X doesn't 
> support, but
> regardless, the fact that something is POSIX doesn't seem to 
> actually
> guarantee much. It puts you in the general ballpark of your 
> stuff working if
> it's using POSIX stuff, but you have to make it sure (and 
> potentially tweak)
> everything that you do which relies on POSIX functionality for 
> each OS to make
> sure that it functions correctly. All you have to do is go 
> through druntime
> and see all of the differences between each of the POSIX 
> systems to see how
> much they vary, in spite of the fact that they're all 
> supposedly following the
> POSIX standard.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

This is the hard reality of UNIX systems, that many aren't aware 
of
because they only know one specific system.

Long time ago, 1999-2003, I had my share of pain supporting 
server applications across Aix, HP-UX, Solaris, Linux, BSD 
besides Windows.

The one that gave us more headaches was HP-UX, due to the archaic 
compiler available on the system and the 32-64 bit transition 
happening on those days.

--
Paulo