"The Free Software community is well known for its diversity. This is most obvious at the application level, but even exists in the context of operating systems. David Chisnall takes a break from UNIX-derivatives and explores some of the more esoteric options." Note: From experience, I can say that the author's claim that "Haiku is more or less ready for their 1.0 release in terms of features" is a bit overambitious.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
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.
Member since:2007-01-20
Third-party compatibility layers obviate the need for in-system POSIX support. When Windows did come with its own POSIX layers, it worked as in the other systems you mentioned. However, as I understand it, it was a small and ageing subset and eventually removed to prevent confusion with any usefully-broad or up-to-date implementation that MSFT didn't care to construct.
Member since:2005-07-06
Any of these new to you?
Netkernel: http://www.1060research.com/netkernel/
House: http://programatica.cs.pdx.edu/House/
Member since:2005-08-17
Member since:
2007-02-22
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