To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Just having POSIX compatibility doesn't make it a *nix... even Windows has had POSIX compatibility since Windows 2000 (I think, maybe a bit earlier).
The POSIX standard seems to unite a large number of disparate operating systems. However, just implementing a feature doesn't define an operating system.
Regarding the article itself, my only complaint is that I didn't learn about a single OS new to me. Most of these are fairly old projects.
Edited 2007-06-25 21:25
Well, there is a difference between having POSIX compatibility (Windows) and being POSIX-compliant (BeOS, QNX, most other UNIX-y OSes). I'm no programmer, but I know that most of the stuff ported to BeOS that ran fine natively would require a compatibility layer like Cygwin to work in Windows, if it would even run at all.
Any of these new to you?
Netkernel: http://www.1060research.com/netkernel/
House: http://programatica.cs.pdx.edu/House/
Haiku still uses an early GCC 2x release to avoid breaking compatibility with BeOS R5
Problems caused by GCC guys, because they changed the virtual call interface
and name mangling in version 3. In version 4 compatibility was broken again, at least for Sparc.
So, for people from real world, they made impossible to upgrade.





Member since:
2007-03-14
I don't like this "David Chisnall" very much.. lol!

What's funny is BeOS itself has "decent" POSIX/SUS compliance, Allowing *nix applications to be ported without "much" trouble..
Unfortunately, Haiku still uses an early GCC 2x release to avoid breaking compatibility with BeOS R5, I hear by R2 they will finally go to GCC 4x.. So all is well and good