From: MikkelFJ Date: 2001-11-27T13:27:55+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:26612] Re: Ruby vs. Python: Decisions, Decisions "Tobias DiPasquale" wrote in message news:3C03098C.6060407@ece.vill.edu... > MikkelFJ wrote: > I just want to clear something up: the Windows method of creating I'm not going into details but yes I know that Unix is not brain dead implemented thanks to MMU's. As a concept I still don't think it is the most elegant way to model a process creation nor am I arguing that NT's way is necessarily better depending on your priorities. The real point was that one should realize the differences as exactly that: differences, instead of arguing that the *nix way is better and therefore Cygwin is the only way to go on Windows. > out, Microsoft claim that Windows NT was POSIX-compliant? Which POSIX > standard were they referring to? fork() is part of the POSIX.1 standard, > so if NT is POSIX-compliant, shouldn't it implement that as well? They did implement a posix subsystem so that they could get C2 certified for use in US government installations. The implementation was a joke all along. I wish they had bothered to create a decent POSIX interface. It wouldn't have been difficult. Microsoft just don't care or they have a strategic agenda. On the other hand Microsoft has done a lot for development enviroments so I don't see this black and white and I have no intention to. Several great ideas behind NT remained as nothing but great ideas once the Windows 3.1 GUI and API entered the system. They could have had something similar to or better than their current system several years back if they had focused - but they would problaby have had a lesser market value on Nasdaq. The rise of internet servers may give them some regrets in that area though. But a good system is by itself no guarantee for success - briefly mentioning NextStep. MikkelFJ