Posix vs. Windows

[Paulo Pinto]

Am 18.05.2012 20:59, schrieb Alex Rønne Petersen:
> On 18-05-2012 20:53, Paulo Pinto wrote:
>> Am 18.05.2012 18:53, schrieb Alex Rønne Petersen:
>>> On 18-05-2012 18:42, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 09:37:23AM -0700, Sean Kelly wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> If you're targeting Windows then use Windows APIs, if Posix then
>>>>> Posix. Windows does claim Posix support, but it's really pretty
>>>>> terrible and Druntime doesn't have declarations for the Posix Windows
>>>>> interface anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Does Windows conform to the Posix spec at all? I highly doubt it, esp.
>>>> some parts that just goes against how Windows works.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> T
>>>>
>>>
>>> Try doing fork() on Windows. ;)
>>>
>>
>> Easy,
>>
>> Initially Windows NT family only supported POSIX.1, due to US federal
>> requirements, later on it was improved by Interix und SUA
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem
>>
>> More information here,
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc772343
>> fork() ==> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc754234
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paulo
>
> Right, but that's not really Win32 out of the box. Cygwin implemented it
> too, in user land.
>

Of course it is not Win32. Windows has the capability of multiple 
subsystems.

By default 3 were offered in the beginnig: Win32, OS/2, Posix.

OS/2 is no longer available for obvious reasons.

The Posix is only one tick box away to install in any enterprise 
version, or via SUA to the home versions.

Some of the APIs are implemented at kernel level, page 53,
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963901.aspx

--
Paulo