this post was submitted on 25 Sep 2023
459 points (84.3% liked)
Unixporn
15456 readers
107 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How can it be? It's oo. Not saying you're wrong. Honestly curious
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem
Since 1993.
Thanks, this explains:
So the interactive part, the shell itself, is not compliant. That is why I was confused
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.
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
bruh
That was Windows NT and was done for C builds so that Microsoft could compete for US government contracts