LG>> To wit, Windows NT is most definitely POSIX.1 certified
 MB>> Isn't the POSIX.1 certification on Windows NT requiring third-party
MB>> libraries?
 LG> It may well, Mathieu. My knowledge of NT is only superfical at best.

Mine too is.

 MB>> Well, you can add up the POSIX.2 interface to most any OS that has
 MB>> streams support, the 3 elementary streams (in, out, err), and some
 MB>> form of multitasking.
 LG> I suspect the standard goes a bit deeper than this. If it didn't, then
 LG> DOS v5 running DesqView would be POSIX.2 compliant. :-)

No, because:

1. there is no streams support at the OS level (the "|" shell operator
doesn't use multitasking, and there is no DOS system call for that).

2. there is no support for two tasks sharing the same terminal.

3. Once you add both to the DOS/DV kernel, you have to write a shell
that is POSIX.2 compliant.

I'm not too familiar with POSIX.2 in particular, so I just thought
about what would be missing to create a clone of the Bourne Shell in
DOS.

 LG> Or more practically OS/2 v2 and v3 -- I don't believe either of them are.

OS/2 is probably much closer to being able to offer a Bourne Shell, but
I don't know enough about OS/2 to say whether a POSIX.2 layer is
implementable. OS/2 is not POSIX.2 compliant because it doesn't include
a POSIX.2 compliant shell, but that could be cured.

 LG> And then there's a whole list of early *nix products that would never
 LG> meet POSIX.2 compliance.

Name?...

matju

--- Terminate 4.00/Pro